PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Local Authorities (Shopping Bags Bill) ( By Order)
	 — 
	Leeds City Council Bill ( By Order)
	 — 
	Nottingham City Council Bill ( By Order)
	 — 
	Reading Borough Council Bill ( By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 20 November.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Electricity Generation

Mark Harper: What assessment he has made of the effect of the current economic climate on investment in new electricity generation plants.

Edward Miliband: No sector is immune from the current economic climate and credit crunch. Along with the regulator Ofgem, we are closely monitoring the effects on the energy sector, including on investment plans. However, there is 11.5 GW of new plant currently under construction or consented and a further 12 GW in the consent process. That is a sign of the willingness of investors to make plans for new generation.

Mark Harper: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but I also want to ask about a specific electricity generation plant, the Severn barrage. By my reading of article 5.2 of the EU renewables directive, the Government are not going to hit their renewables target without constructing the barrage. That would make nonsense of the studies that are under way and the great concern that there is locally. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government can hit their EU renewables target without having to build the Severn barrage?

Edward Miliband: Yes, I can confirm that. The Severn barrage is one of a number of options that we will be considering in relation to our renewables target. However, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that we have made progress on renewables, admittedly from a low base, in the past few years. We want to make further progress, which is why, for example, we are banding renewable obligation certificates in legislation that is before the House, why I have made announcements on feed-in tariffs, and why the Planning Bill is intended to speed up the siting of new renewables facilities. I acknowledge that we need to make a lot more progress on a number of fronts on renewables. The Severn barrage is one option for doing so.

Colin Challen: May I take this opportunity—my first—to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment? Does he agree that a period of economic downturn is a good time to look again at the skills that we need, and the investment that we need to put into them, to help to recreate our energy generation sector? Will he have discussions with the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills to pursue that agenda?

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I should like to join the mutual admiration society and pay tribute to the work that he has done on climate change and energy over a number of years. He is right to say that, as we think about the current downturn, some people will say to us, "It's time to abandon your climate change objectives." However, the green jobs agenda and moving to a low-carbon economy give us an opportunity to prepare for the upturn and to find new ways of employing people. He is also right to say that the skills agenda is an important part of that, and I will have discussions with the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills on the matter.

Philip Hollobone: There may be 11 GW of replacement plant on its way, but it is not here yet, and there could be problems if there are unscheduled outages in major power plants, problems with the gas interconnector with Europe and a cold winter. What priority is the Secretary of State attaching to ensuring that there is not a major blackout in this country this winter?

Edward Miliband: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The answer is that that is my top priority. The Minister of State and I monitor the situation on a weekly basis. We talk to the National Grid Company and Ofgem about all such issues. The National Grid Company is reassuring me about the prospects for this winter at the moment, but I am not complacent. We keep a very close eye on the situation.

Albert Owen: Does the Secretary of State agree that, to help business through this difficult period and, indeed, in the short and medium term, we need to increase electricity capacity, thereby reducing prices? That would particularly help energy-intensive industries. Does he further agree that one way to do that is to extend the current life of safe nuclear plants while we are waiting for new build to come on stream? Will he agree to meet the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and me so that we can make progress on a matter that has been ongoing in my constituency for some time?

Edward Miliband: Our team will definitely undertake to meet my hon. Friend, and I will definitely consider his suggestion. It was right to end the moratorium on new nuclear power stations, but the priority on nuclear is to work out how we can get new nuclear facilities built. The situation will be helped by the EDF takeover of British Energy. EDF wants to build four new nuclear power stations, which I think is right for our country. Lots of people have changed their opinion of nuclear power on the basis of the climate change challenge that we face. I think that we have got the right policy on nuclear, but I will endeavour also to look at the issue that my hon. Friend has raised.

Charles Hendry: Yesterday morning, the Minister of State told the "Today" programme that, far from facing energy shortages in 2015, 37 per cent. more power would be generated in comparison with today. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the National Grid Company seven-year statement takes no account of whether projects will get planning consent or even whether they will get the funding to build them? Will he also confirm that it does not take account of the extent to which generating capacity will be lost? Almost 15 GW of capacity is likely to be lost, as more of our capacity in nuclear, oil and coal closes down, so will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to set the record straight and admit that the outlook is much tighter than the Minister suggested?

Edward Miliband: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State was absolutely right in the figures that he provided, which come from the National Grid Company. As I said in my answer, there are issues about the next decade, but the prospect for new build happening is a good one. The difficult question for all of us is how to ensure that the supply of new build is diverse and not simply more gas-fired power stations. We want a diversity of supply and we want low-carbon options.

Greg Clark: Coal.

Edward Miliband: The hon. Gentleman shouts "Coal" from a sedentary position, but unlike Conservative Members, we have not set our face in principle against new coal-fired power stations, which is to prejudge the issue. The challenge is to get the capacity we need—I am convinced that we can—while also having a diverse range of energy sources.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Linda Gilroy: What recent assessment he has made of the progress towards achieving the Government's target for carbon dioxide emissions reduction by 2050.

Edward Miliband: Between 1990 and 2006, the UK cut by 16 per cent. its own emissions of dangerous greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide; and if action taken under the EU emissions trading scheme is included, emissions were cut by 20 per cent. That makes Britain one of the few countries in the world that is on course to exceed its Kyoto targets; and we are the first in the world to legislate for a 2050 target, which, following my announcement last month, is now set at 80 per cent.

Linda Gilroy: I welcome that progress, but my right hon. Friend will know that many of my constituents are particularly interested in climate change. Does he understand their concern that the Government are not yet moving fast enough on issues such as getting the balance right between air, road and rail travel? Does he acknowledge that they also worry about credits, which may be a way of buying our way out of things rather reducing our own emissions?

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need a balanced approach and that we need proper domestic effort to deal with these issues. What I would say to her and others listening to our debate on the question of buying in credits from abroad is that we need to show that we—the whole world—are in this together. If we can find ways of providing finance to developing countries to enable them to move towards a low-carbon economy, I believe that that is all to the good. There need to be limits, but we argue in favour of that in the EU and we also have recommendations from the Energy and Climate Change Committee to consider. My hon. Friend is right in what she says, but I believe that credits have a role to play as well.

Peter Lilley: During the debate on the Climate Change Bill, the Secretary of State made much of the fact that the targets that he has set will be legally binding. Will he confirm that that does not mean that Ministers or officials will be held to account or punished if they fail to meet those targets and that its only implication is that those targets are judicially reviewable? Does he accept that if a court believes that he is failing to achieve those targets, it could insist, without being democratically accountable to the public, that we spend more and take more measures to meet the targets—all £200 billion of them—than the Government are currently committed to?

Edward Miliband: I know from our debates that—

Peter Lilley: Answer the question.

Edward Miliband: I will. I know from our discussions that the right hon. Gentleman is a sceptic about some of our climate change targets. It is of course the case that the targets in the Bill will be judicially reviewable. It is also the case that there are limits to the actions that can be taken against Governments. However, the important point is that when the House set out its general cross-party consensus on long-term targets, it was a way of binding the hands of Ministers in this Government and Ministers in future Governments. No Parliament can completely bind the hands of the next Parliament, but this was an important innovation because it set out so clearly—in a cross-party consensus—the objectives that Ministers needed to follow to meet the targets.

Mark Todd: One means of meeting our targets is to change the balance of our energy generation. A new biomass power station is already planned at Drakelow in my constituency, but are there opportunities to encourage the site owners to explore other biomass options at other locations along power valley—the Trent valley which South Derbyshire straddles?

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend has made a good point. Biomass can play an important role in meeting some of our future energy needs, particularly in terms of heating. We have tabled amendments to the Energy Bill to encourage the generation of renewable heat, but I think we can go a great deal further to meet our climate change targets in that regard.

Jo Swinson: It is to the Secretary of State's credit that he listened to the experts, scientists and thousands of campaigners across the country who called for the target of an 80 per cent. reduction in emissions by 2050, but does he agree that if that target is to be met, the current target of a 26 per cent. reduction by 2020 will need to be revised significantly upwards? If so, when does he intend to announce the new target?

Edward Miliband: I thought that the hon. Lady was going to add that I had listened to the advice of the Liberal Democrats, but, in a very non-partisan way, she resisted the temptation, on which I congratulate her. She is right to suggest that we need to look again at our 2020 targets.
	Lord Turner will make recommendations on 1 December for carbon budgets for the next 15 years, which will include 2020. It is also important for us to stick to the agreement reached by the Heads of Government in 2007 that we will aim for a 20 per cent. overall European Union reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and a 30 per cent. reduction contingent on agreement at Copenhagen. That is something for which we have argued. We will take a view on the new 2020 targets following Lord Turner's advice.

Lynne Jones: When my right hon. Friend made his first statement to the House as Secretary of State, he told me that calculating the direction of travel for public spending would be an important part of meeting our climate change targets. He said that he would go away and do some homework. Will he now tell us what assessment he has made of whether we are on track to meet the Stern recommendations?

Edward Miliband: I am tempted to say, "The dog ate my homework", but I think the best thing for me to tell my hon. Friend is that I am working on it. Now that she has asked me the question a second time, I shall make sure that I demonstrate further progress next time she asks it.

Gregory Barker: There was broad support for the adoption of the even more stretching 2050 and 2020 targets, but what policy does the Secretary of State believe does more to undermine their credibility—building a third runway at Heathrow, or the Government's commitment to building a new generation of dirty coal-fired power stations without carbon capture and storage from the outset?

Edward Miliband: The hon. Gentleman is on the fringe wing of the Tory Front Bench—he is its outrider—when it comes to these issues, about which he knows a great deal. Let me deal directly with the two questions that he has asked, because they are important. The two main points about aviation are that reducing its carbon emissions must be, and is, part of our overall climate change objectives, and that we must put a price on those carbon emissions, and are doing so under the European Union emissions trading scheme. The decision on the third runway is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but whatever decision is made, there will be a carbon price for aviation. That is the most important point.
	As for what the hon. Gentleman describes as "dirty" coal-fired power stations, Conservative Front Benchers have made a decision on those: whatever the needs of security of supply and whatever the demands for the next decade—about which the hon. Gentleman asked—there must be no more new coal-fired power stations. I take the more balanced view that we need to examine the case relating to security of supply and, as quickly as possible, establish how we can also meet our need to reduce carbon emissions. That is the work that we are undertaking. We will respond to the carbon capture and readiness consultation that we initiated, and then we will answer those questions.

Energy Market

Judy Mallaber: What recent discussions his Department has had with energy companies on the energy market; and if he will make a statement.

Mike O'Brien: We met the chief executives of the big six energy suppliers three weeks ago, and emphasised to them that, just as oil prices have fallen and petrol prices have therefore begun to fall as well, wholesale gas prices have come down. We want the companies to respond to business and consumer concerns about the fact that gas and electricity prices remain so high.

Judy Mallaber: As my hon. and learned Friend points out, oil prices have halved. Following those discussions, does he have an indication as to when the utilities will take action to cut bills so that households no longer suffer and businesses are able to have sustainable power contracts? Have they given any indication that they are prepared to take action on the Ofgem findings on the scandal of rip-off bills for those on prepaid meters and of those who are not connected to the gas mains? Why are they so quick to put prices up—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is doing well and she should stop there.

Mike O'Brien: On prepayment meters, Ofgem has given the companies until December to respond to that point and we have indicated that if the companies fail to respond adequately, we are prepared to legislate. On gas prices, the gas companies say that they buy their gas sometimes up to about six months ahead on the advance markets and, therefore, it takes time for the gas price reductions—the last time I looked they had fallen by about 22 per cent.—to come through into gas bills. I am pleased to say that this morning's newspapers reveal that Scottish and Southern has indicated, as we asked the companies to do, that it is looking at lowering its prices as soon as it can. I now look to the other energy suppliers to give indications that they will be bringing down their prices to a more reasonable level.

Peter Luff: I was grateful to the Secretary of State for the opportunity to discuss with him my Committee's report on fuel prices that was published in July, which proved that increased prices were the fault not of the companies but of the market. We are addressing market failure. Since we published that report, there has been a significant deterioration in market conditions. BizzEnergy, an electricity supplier in my constituency, has gone bust, with 160 jobs lost. The Government are allowing British Energy to be bought by EDF. Transparency and liquidity are being reduced in the electricity market. There will be one consequence— higher prices for consumers. Does the Minister agree?

Mike O'Brien: To ensure that we get long-term affordable electricity, gas and energy supplies, we need to make sure that there is diversity of supply. The hon. Gentleman rightly says that there are issues in relation to the market, which is why we asked Ofgem to look at it. It has reported and made a number of recommendations, which it has said must be put in place. We are waiting for the outcome of that consultation now. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are issues in relation to the market, but they are being addressed.
	On British Energy, the Government have looked at the proposal, which would bring £12.5 billion of investment into the UK. Do the Conservatives think that is a bad thing? We think that it will help to provide security of energy supply for the long term. I am sorry if the Conservatives take a different view.

Lindsay Hoyle: When my hon. and learned Friend met Dick Turpin and the rip-off bill merchants, I hope he said to them that it was not on and that the time had come for a windfall tax. Did he also ask them why they failed to invest in storage capacity, as a result of which gas prices are being kept artificially high?

Mike O'Brien: There has been some investment in storage capacity and we have been anxious to make sure that that is brought on. We have given strong indications to the gas and electricity suppliers that—particularly in the current economic climate, with families concerned about the bills and where the economy is at the moment as the result of the global problems in the financial markets—they have a responsibility to bring down energy prices as soon as they reasonably can. We gave that clear message to the chief executives. We will not be satisfied if we think that there is any delay in doing that. We are looking to Ofgem, the regulator, to do its job.

Steve Webb: Will the Minister accept that the energy market is a mess when it comes to social tariffs? Of the big six energy companies, one provides most of the social tariffs, and it has now stopped; it will not let new customers go on to social tariffs. Some of the others do not do any at all. Is that the right way for vulnerable customers to be treated? Is it not a risky strategy to rely on the goodness of heart of the energy companies?

Mike O'Brien: We have had an assurance from the energy companies that they will put a further £225 million into social tariffs. The way in which the energy companies were privatised means that they all have to compete. Ofgem has taken the view that they also compete on social tariffs. There is an argument for greater standardisation of social tariffs, and I have some sympathy with it, but the companies take a view, as, indeed, Ofgem does, that there is a market and this is one of the areas where they need to compete. Some 600,000 people are able to access these lower social tariffs, and I want to put more people on them so that they pay lower prices. That is why the Pensions Bill contains a provision to allow data sharing by the Department for Work and Pensions to enable the energy companies to know which people are on pension credit—in due course we would want to extend that further—so that they can be put on a social tariff, as I hope would happen.

Brian Jenkins: My hon. and learned Friend gives us assurances that the companies say this and say that, but does their track record not bear investigation? A company's role is to maximise its profits at any cost, and we knew that when we introduced the regulator. It has watched the industry for a few years, but when are the Government going to buy it some new teeth?

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right to say that we must always examine the track record of the companies. There is public concern that they have been quick to indicate that prices will rise and slow to indicate when prices will fall, which is why I have welcomed the statement by Scottish and Southern Energy in response to our meeting with it and with the other chief executives. I look to those other energy companies to follow its example and start to say when some prices will come down. Parliament has said that it wants an independent regulator, which Ofgem is, so Ministers cannot keep telling the regulator what it has to do, because it is supposed to be independent. None the less, we have had meetings with Ofgem and we have indicated that we want it to be robust in ensuring that it protects the interests of the market and of competition.

Greg Clark: Why do gas and electricity cost more in Britain than on the continent?

Mike O'Brien: All the way through the early part of this decade, we have had much lower gas prices than most of the continent, because the market was able to operate very effectively to ensure that prices fell. Europe operates using a different system. It operates long-term and often not very transparent deals, particularly in the business sector. Deals that can last for some years are signed, holding down some of those prices. When our market falls and we get the benefits, Europe does not. When the market starts to rise and our prices rise, it takes some time before Europe renegotiates some of its long-term contracts. We are pressing, with the EU Commission, to get more transparency into some of those deals and to get a more effective market operating in Europe. We want to ensure that we all get the benefit of a more successful and competitive market, because we all want to pay the lowest price that we reasonably can.

Greg Clark: Mr. Speaker, did you know that the Minister's new Department has 900 policy advisers? Do you think that he might have done better with that, given that level of advice? One of the reasons why British customers suffer price spikes is that, due to the absence of a serious energy policy over the past 10 years, we have only 14 days worth of gas storage compared with 99 days worth in Germany and 122 days worth in France. A further reason is the structure of the market. Four weeks ago—not three, as the Minister said—the Secretary of State stood at that Dispatch Box and said that he had given the big six energy companies four weeks to take urgent action or else he would do so. A month later, there has been no change and no action—he has fallen at the first fence. Will the Minister act to stop prepayment meters being used to make the poor subsidise the well-off?

Mike O'Brien: Well, the hon. Gentleman knows very well that Ofgem has undertaken a consultation and has said that the energy companies must respond by December. In case he has missed it—I know that he is not that well informed —[Interruption.] He starts running down the officials who advise us, but they cannot respond to him; if he wants to start having a go at people, we can all play games like that.
	On prepayment meters, the energy companies have been given until December, and Ofgem has said that it wants a response and action. We have said that we are prepared to legislate if the energy companies do not respond on prepayment meters. It certainly is the case that we have ensured that our energy market is able to operate more effectively than those in Europe. In recent years, we have been able to keep our average energy prices lower, and we now need to ensure that we have greater transparency in the broader EU market.

Russell Brown: I applaud the work that my hon. and learned Friend is doing on social tariffs, but in rural constituencies such as mine, social tariffs do not matter to many people, as their only form of heating is oil, liquefied petroleum gas or coal—the latter has also risen significantly in price. Will he consider ways to reduce bills for people who rely on those fuels?

Mike O'Brien: We are already looking at the market for heating oil, which does cause me some concern. We want to ensure that it operates efficiently and effectively. The market for coal is now much more international—and certainly more European—than regional, and that affects the price. Some 90 per cent. of the coal supplied in the UK goes to the power stations, so very small amounts go to domestic use. My hon. Friend is right to say that many people are worried, especially in former mining constituencies such as mine, where people receive and use free coal. Others choose to use coal and therefore have to pay the price, and we want to ensure that they are not overcharged.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Road Transport)

David Chaytor: What his most recent estimate is of the proportion of UK greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the road transport sector.

Joan Ruddock: In 2006—the latest year for which finalised data are available—road transport accounted for approximately 126 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, which is roughly 19 per cent. of total UK greenhouse gas emissions.

David Chaytor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the use of graduated vehicle excise duty is an important measure in reducing emissions from road transport? Does she also agree that exempting the current vehicle fleet from graduated VED—for which the forces of conservatism on both sides of the House have lobbied—would be counter-productive to the Government's climate change strategy? Will she speak to her colleagues in the Treasury about that before the pre-Budget statement in two weeks time?

Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. As he knows perfectly well, all decisions on taxation are a matter for the Chancellor, and it will not be long before we hear more on that subject—and others—from him. The principle of linking CO2 emissions to vehicle taxation is correct, and we began that process in 2001. It is supported by my Department, and we also agree that expanding the range of bands to create greater sensitivity between CO2 emissions and particular vehicles is the right approach. We—

Desmond Swayne: Oh come on!

Joan Ruddock: Well, it is very important—

Desmond Swayne: I mean hurry up!

Mr. Speaker: Order. As a trade unionist, I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to do another man's job. He is trying to do my job, but in any case, the Minister has done well and we should move on.

Michael Fabricant: I hope that the Minister gets over her cold soon. While she does so, perhaps she could consider alternative forms of transport. Not every item transported on Britain's roads needs to be delivered quickly. British Waterways is spending a fortune restoring our canals, and the narrow boat system is far more efficient in terms of greenhouse emissions at moving heavy goods from one part of the country to another. I ask her Department to speak to the Department for Transport and to investigate that alternative way to move goods across the nation.

Joan Ruddock: I apologise if I am speaking slowly; I have a very bad infection. I simply wanted to conclude that it is appropriate that people should understand linkages so that they can purchase the appropriate vehicles.
	Let me turn to the hon. Gentleman's point about moving goods by water. That subject is always under consideration. I can tell him that the Department for Transport is working on a low-carbon transport strategy. I am quite sure that we will be able to consider the points that he has made, because he is right that there are issues about emissions that can be well dealt with by alternative modes of transport.

Topical Questions

Stephen Crabb: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Edward Miliband: The new Department of Energy and Climate Change is a recognition that energy and climate change should be considered not separately but together. It brings together the Government's work on three challenges that face our country: ensuring that we have energy that is affordable, secure and sustainable; bringing about the transition to a low-carbon Britain; and achieving international agreement on climate change.

Stephen Crabb: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. On the subject of secure supply, the Secretary of State might be aware that recently three of the new super-tugs that will be required to bring in the large cargoes of liquefied natural gas that we anticipate will start to arrive in the UK in the months ahead had to be rerouted via the Cape because of fear on the part of the company that they would not be adequately protected against Somali pirates in the gulf of Aden. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with his colleague the Secretary of State for Defence about measures that can be taken to protect all energy-related shipping serving the UK to ensure that we have security of supply in the future?

Edward Miliband: International piracy is being considered at EU level, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise that important question. I think that he is also raising the question of the new terminal at Milford Haven, which we hope will be ready next spring. That is very important for bringing in supplies of gas as it will be able to provide up to 20 per cent. of UK gas supplies.

David Chaytor: In four weeks, the UN climate change conference in Poznan will consider the European Union's climate change and renewable energy package. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the stringent targets in that package are fully supported by the Government and that there has been no attempt to dilute the targets with which we are presented?

Joan Ruddock: May I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for that point? It is crucial that the 2020 package goes through. The UK Government have been in the forefront of trying to stiffen the resolve of other European members who have taken the position, which I think is wrong, that in this economic downturn that target cannot be pursued. We believe that it is crucial to jobs, to our future and to our climate change agenda that the energy and climate change package is taken forward. This is not the time, in any sense, to resile from that.

Desmond Swayne: In his letter of 7 October, Lord Turner, the chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, said that if there was to be any prospect of our meeting the target on emissions, the decarbonisation of electricity generation had to start now. Today, we have had boasts from those on the Treasury Bench about the great leap forward in generation by 2015, which is almost wholly dependent on fossil fuels. Either Lord Turner is wrong and the Minister is right, or it is the other way around. Which is it?

Mike O'Brien: It is not quite as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests. We need always to ensure that we strike the appropriate balance between getting security and affordability and ensuring that we hit the targets. Lord Turner is right to say that we need to ensure that we hit those targets and start taking the steps now. We have made proposals for nuclear and for building up renewables, particularly wind technology. We are making Britain the leading country—we passed Denmark about a month ago—in terms of offshore wind provision from wind turbines. We are therefore taking the steps necessary to move towards our target. I do not deny that there is a lot more to do, and that is certainly what Lord Turner and his team have told us.

Katy Clark: The Minister will be aware of the concerns that have been expressed about the capacity of the national grid, and in particular about the queuing system, which adversely affects small projects such as community wind farms that are trying to get connected. What are the Government doing to address those concerns?

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right to say that there are concerns about how those who are bringing forward renewable projects can get access to the grid and the transmission system. We have asked Ofgem to look at the problem: it is coming forward with proposals and we are looking to have a consultation sometime in December. In the immediate term, however, we have made it clear that we want provision to be made for connect and manage, which basically means that new projects can be brought on to the transmission system. Although the system has not been fully upgraded, it can be managed so that we can get some of the new projects on it.
	We have also asked Ofgem to look at how the various cases and applications coming forward can be prioritised, and at whether some will actually be delivered. We know that some will not, so we need to prioritise those that are likely to be delivered and make sure that we get them on to the transmission system more quickly and at an earlier date.

Anne McIntosh: In the Secretary of State's flagship Climate Change Bill, there is a chapter on waste recovery. Will he take this opportunity to say how the Government propose to get rid of the mountains of paper and plastic that have gone to recycling and are being stored by local authorities? I understand that we need energy-from-waste schemes around the country, but at the moment they are not going ahead to a sufficient extent because of concern about incineration. When will the Government take this theme to the country and explain why energy from waste is so necessary at this time?

Joan Ruddock: The Government have already made it absolutely clear that energy from waste systems is part of the waste treatment facilities that this country needs. Private finance credits worth £2 billion are available for the development of more waste infrastructure, and some of the facilities will indeed be energy-from-waste plants. The hon. Lady is right to say that there is a short-term problem with the accumulation of recyclables because of the economic downturn, but we expect that to be dealt with over time. This is not the time for us to begin to discontinue our recycling effort—we must recycle because that saves new resources being used. She is right that getting energy from waste can be one of the solutions to recycling, but it is not the only one. We still need plants that recycle waste and the new developments in recycling plants, especially for plastics, will help to resolve some of the problems.

Dari Taylor: I would appreciate it if one of the energy and climate change team would state clearly and boldly that biofuels are essential if we are to achieve our emissions targets. Will one of them visit the biofuels companies and farmers in the north-east? I should greatly appreciate that, as sustainable and innovative food and fuel projects are being developed that are receiving millions of pounds in investment.

Edward Miliband: I will definitely volunteer one of my Ministers, or myself, to visit my hon. Friend's constituency. That is something to look forward to, but she raises an important point about biofuels. We are trying to get a provision in the 2020 EU directive for indirect land use in respect of biofuels, to ensure their sustainability. The Government believe that biofuels can play a role in our energy mix, but that we need to be careful that they are produced in a sustainable way. That is the right approach, and it is the basis on which we shall proceed.

Andrew MacKay: As the poor Minister of State was unable to do so, will the Secretary of State now try to explain why gas and electricity prices are lower in France and Germany than they are in the UK? Will he also allay my constituents' fears that, with French-owned energy companies in this country, there might be some form of cross-subsidy that is not helping us?

Edward Miliband: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first question is clear: actually, our prices are lower than the EU average for the individual consumer. Historically, that has been the case. As was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, we are more subject to ups and downs in the market price. If the right hon. Gentleman does not like the market system that was introduced in the 1980s and 1990s, he can say so, but the most important thing that we can do, given the system that we have, is first to look at the system to make sure that it is the right one—we will do that—and secondly to put all necessary pressure on the energy companies to lower their prices. That is what we did four weeks ago, and that is what I will do at my meeting with the energy companies on Monday. I shall report back to the House on those discussions.

Eric Illsley: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and I recently attended a reception where there was a demonstration of technology that can be retrofitted to coal-fired power stations to reduce their CO2 emissions by 50 per cent. That would enable coal-fired power stations to be kept in use after 2015, and will reduce our carbon emissions greatly. The technology was developed by British Coal, and it was called the topping cycle at the time. Incidentally, the funding for that topping cycle was abolished by the Conservative Government in 1988. It is ironic that that technology is now being used to reduce carbon emissions. Will my hon. and learned Friend urge the energy generators seriously to consider fitting that technology to existing coal-fired power stations?

Mike O'Brien: Certainly, my hon. Friend and I attended a meeting where that new technology was discussed. A whole range of new ideas is coming forward from those who want to ensure that we get cleaner coal. One of the ideas brought forward was the one that we discussed the other day. I very much hope that the energy companies will look into such new projects, and run them alongside carbon capture and storage, so that we can ensure a future for clean-coal technology. We know that the Opposition—the Conservatives, at least—take the view that coal does not really have a role unless new technology is delivered in exactly the way that they want. We say that there is a range of ideas out there, and we want to see those ideas develop. We want generators to consider them, so that we get security, as 30 per cent., and at certain times in the year 50 per cent., of our energy comes from coal—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Peter Lilley.

Peter Lilley: Earlier, the Secretary of State admitted that as a result of the Climate Change Bill his progress towards, and policies on, meeting the Government's targets would be judicially reviewable. Subsequently, he said that he intended to go ahead with coal-fired power stations because he attaches more importance to security of supply. Is he aware that that is precisely the sort of decision that will be subject to judicial review? Will he tell us whether he has taken any legal advice on whether he will be able to get away with that policy? A yes-or-no answer will suffice.

Edward Miliband: Why do I sometimes feel that I am being patronised? What I say to the right hon. Gentleman is that we are determined to meet our targets on climate change emissions, and we will do so. We are also determined to meet our ambitions on security of supply, to ensure that we keep the lights on. I am convinced that we can do both. The question about coal-fired power stations is: how quickly can we get carbon capture and storage attached to new coal-fired power stations? The Opposition have said that there should be no new coal-fired power stations unless CCS can be fitted immediately. We take a less dogmatic position; we ask how quickly we can ensure that carbon capture and storage can be attached to coal-fired power stations. That is what we are considering at the moment.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Select Committees

David Heathcoat-Amory: If she will bring forward proposals for Select Committees to conduct more of their business in public.

Chris Bryant: We have no plans to do so, because we believe that the historical tradition of this House, whereby Select Committees deliberate in private but take evidence in public, is the right way forward.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Deputy Leader of the House reflect on the fact that last night, despite all the efforts of the Labour Whips, our motion to open up the European Scrutiny Committee to the public was defeated by only six votes? The Committee sifts European proposals, which are eventually responsible for more than half of all the laws and regulations in this country. Will he therefore introduce amended proposals to allow the public into our proceedings, so that they can see what we do, on their behalf, about that torrent of legislation? If not, will he stop pretending that the Government are in any way in favour of the public's right to know and their engagement with the political process, as that will have been exposed as a hollow sham?

Chris Bryant: The right hon. Gentleman is basically trying to rerun yesterday's debate, which he lost comprehensively, and he lost the vote as well.

Michael Fabricant: By six votes

Chris Bryant: The right hon. Gentleman certainly lost the argument comprehensively. There is a more important point to be made. If we changed the rules on when Select Committees meet in private and when they meet in public, he would immediately start to complain —[ Interruption. ] The shadow Leader of the House will have her moment. If we changed the rules in the House regarding when Select Committees meet in private and in public, the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain when a member of a Select Committee started to release private information from the Committee's process of deliberation when a report was being drafted. We know perfectly well that it is up to Select Committees to choose when they meet in private or in public, but the historic tradition enforced by successive Speakers is the right one.

Secondary Legislation

Michael Fabricant: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the House's procedures for scrutinising secondary legislation; and if she will make a statement.

Chris Bryant: I believe that the process of secondary legislation is working well, but we are always open to suggestions.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister would, wouldn't he—as someone else famously said. While we all recognise the value of secondary legislation, particularly for Bills that introduce fines that have to be updated annually, or quotas and so on, there appears to be an ever-increasing use of Government amendments to Bills on Report or statutory instruments being used more and more to include information that could have been included in the primary legislation or in the Bill. As a result, in Committee, we often end up writing out a blank cheque, because so much is missing: statutory instrument content is not known, and we do not know what amendments the Government will table on Report to their own Bill. Yes, the Minister is right: on the whole SIs work well, but will he at least monitor their performance to ensure that they are not used as a blank cheque?

Chris Bryant: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees that, broadly speaking, the system works well, and that it is right and proper that, for instance, the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) (Amendment) Regulations 2008, whereby the processes for sacking a judge are determined, should be subject to the negative resolution procedure, which is less onerous for the House, whereas the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2008, which changes the classification of cannabis, should be subject to the affirmative procedure, as the House would want to have a proper debate on that and make an informed decision. Of course, we will keep this under regular review, but the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, admirably chaired by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean), does a good job in making sure that no statutory instrument is ultra vires or introduces inappropriate legislation.

Nigel Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman have any plans to make secondary legislation by means of Order in Council amendable?

Chris Bryant: We do not have any intention of doing so at the moment. The truth of the matter is that if we were going to make something amendable in any of the different categories of secondary legislation, it would make more sense for us to introduce primary legislation, so that it would be fully amendable and would go through all the separate processes in the House and, equally importantly, in the other place as well.

Shailesh Vara: Following the reply by the Deputy Leader of the House to the previous question, and given that the volume of secondary legislation is so vast—some 12,000 pages in 2006—is it not time to undertake a proper review to allow greater scrutiny at the secondary legislation stage? I know that there are arguments for keeping the existing system, but they were made when the volume of secondary legislation was much less, so it is time for a review.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman knows that secondary legislation can come forward only if it is dependent on the original primary legislation, and we on the Government Benches are very keen to ensure that there is a process of post-legislative scrutiny. If the scrutiny were to suggest that, in a particular area, further, secondary legislation should not come forward from an individual Act, we would want to review the matter. If the hon. Gentleman would like to make specific recommendations, however, my room is room 102, around the corner, and he should feel very free to come round to talk to me sometime.

Ministerial Answers

Andrew MacKinlay: If she will take steps to ensure that Ministers' answers to hon. Members include pertinent information otherwise available to the public; and if she will make a statement.

Chris Bryant: My right hon. and learned Friend and I always encourage ministerial colleagues to be as helpful as possible when answering hon. Members' questions. This does of course mean that, where possible, instead of referring to a previous answer or to a document that is available elsewhere, Ministers should provide the fullest possible information.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will my hon. Friend have a word with the Prime Minister? Did the Deputy Leader of the House notice that on 17 June and 13 October, on the advice of John Scarlett and Gus O'Donnell, the Prime Minister declined to answer my question as to who is the Clerk of the so-called Intelligence and Security Committee—an appointed Committee? The Prime Minister declined, and it upset me. I lay awake at night and, trying to get to sleep, reached for the "Civil Service Year Book", where I noticed—and I shall say this in a whisper, because it is top secret:
	"Clerk to the Intelligence and Security Committee
	Emma-Louise Avery".
	The serious point is that this is sloppy. These are the same people who preside over things being left on railway trains leaving Waterloo and who try to tell me who I should and should not meet in London. It is arrogant of them to refuse to answer a reasonable question and it has got to stop—right from the top of the pyramid down to assistant regional Ministers.

Chris Bryant: I commend my hon. Friend, whom I think all Members think of their hon. Friend, for the forthrightness with which he always puts his case, and for his diligence. I hate to think of him lying awake at night worrying about things, but the general principle is absolutely clear: it is important that Ministers always provide the fullest possible information to Members, unless there is a very specific reason why they cannot do so, or when it is disproportionate to do so. I am more than happy to pass my hon. Friend's comments on to the Prime Minister.

Simon Hughes: On that subject, can Ministers also try to ensure that the same honesty applies whenever there are ministerial answers? On the debate about Heathrow yesterday—[Hon. Members: "Tuesday."] On Tuesday. It is absolutely clear that when Ministers told colleagues that no date had been decided for the Heathrow debate, the British Airports Authority had been told that the debate would be on Tuesday this week. Can Mr. Speaker's rulings be respected, so that colleagues in the House are told first and before people with a commercial interest outside the House?

Chris Bryant: Of course there is a basic principle that everything should be told to the House before it is told elsewhere, but there are very special circumstances, such as when issues might affect the markets, whereby I think the whole House understands that, for instance, the Chancellor of the Exchequer needs to make announcements in a slightly different way—and then needs to come to the House as soon as possible.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) seems to have forgotten about yesterday, because the Heathrow debate was two days ago, but I am sure that the Secretary of State for Transport will have heard his comments, which the hon. Gentleman has now put on the record.

Business of the House (Timetabling)

Peter Bone: What factors she takes into account when making decisions about the timetable for the business of the House.

Chris Bryant: Competing factors obviously have to be borne in mind: the need for proper scrutiny of legislation, the need for proper accountability of the Government, the needs of Back Benchers to represent their constituents' concerns, the need of the whole House to listen to the concerns of the whole nation, and the need for the Government to get through its business efficiently and efficaciously. Sometimes those different factors clash.

Peter Bone: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that answer. Oh, that it were true.

Chris Bryant: It is true.

Peter Bone: The Deputy Leader of the House says that it is true. Will he therefore explain why, yesterday, the Government forced a closure motion when at least five Back Benchers wanted to speak on a programme motion that was designed to guillotine time on vital issues? It was an outrageous abuse of Parliament.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is for Mr. Speaker to decide, although Mr. Deputy Speaker was in the Chair yesterday, whether a closure motion is appropriate. The hon. Gentleman is trying to rerun yesterday's debate. The important point is that we tabled the business motion a full week in advance and neither the shadow Leader of the House nor the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, raised it at business questions last week. I say in all honesty and sincerity that if the shadow Leader of the House had said that she wanted more time for yesterday's debate, we would have listened to her concerns.

David Taylor: One of the measures that we can use to see whether business is being processed effectively and efficiently is the number of Government Bills introduced in one Session that are carried over into the next Session, perhaps for want of time. Is the Deputy Leader of the House aware that that number seems to be increasing over the years? Is he happy with that fact? Does he not think that the schedules of Bills at the Queen's Speech are sometimes over-ambitious?

Chris Bryant: I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but the number of carry-over Bills has not been increasing. At the moment, there are only two: the Political Parties and Elections Bill and the Banking Bill. In the past, my hon. Friend has argued in favour of carry-over Bills. They mean that at certain stages of the year it is more possible for this House and the other Chamber to provide suitable in-depth scrutiny of legislation. It is right that we have the carry-over provision, which is only a few years old.

Patrick Cormack: If the Deputy Leader of the House truly means what he says about timetabling, will he and the Leader of the House take a little time during Prorogation to consider establishing a proper business Committee composed of senior Back Benchers who would determine the allocation of the House's time?

Chris Bryant: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well, which is why he is sitting down with a great big smile all over his face. If there were to be a business Committee, I am sure that he, as one of the most senior Members of the House, would sit on it. I know that other Conservative Members also think that there should be one. However, to suggest that there should be such a Committee shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the House operates. The only reason we are the Government is that we have a majority in the House. That arrangement is very different from that in the United States of America, where the Executive are separate from the legislature.

Secondary Legislation

David Jones: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the procedures of the House for handling secondary legislation.

Chris Bryant: I hate to say that I shall refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave a few moments ago, but I will.

David Jones: I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for confirming his previous answer. As he will know, the second of the new Welsh legislative competence orders went through Committee yesterday, and many more are expected. Given that those are important constitutional instruments conferring primary powers on the Welsh Assembly, how content is he that the only opportunity for debate of those measures is for one and a half hours in Committee? What consideration would he give, in certain cases at least, to extending such debates to the Floor of the House?

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right to say that those instruments are considered only in Committee sittings of one and a half hours; they also undergo pre-legislative scrutiny through the Welsh Affairs Committee. I want to pay tribute to the members of that Committee, particularly to its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis); the Committee is taking on a significant new burden and a large number of legislative competence orders are now coming through from the Welsh Assembly. Some come from members of the hon. Gentleman's party who have recommended them as effectively being private Members' Bills from Wales, and some come in other ways. However, it is early days, and we want to keep the process under review.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 17 November—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution on the Education and Skills Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Education and Skills Bill.
	Tuesday 18 November—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution on the Energy Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Energy Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Climate Change Bill [ Lords].
	Wednesday 19 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Counter-terrorism Bill.
	Thursday 20 November—General debate on fisheries.
	The business for the week commencing 24 November will include:
	Monday 24 November—The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to present the pre-Budget report. Consideration of Lords amendments to the Planning Bill.
	Tuesday 25 November—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Pensions Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
	Wednesday 26 November—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by Report stage of the Banking Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 27 November—Consideration of Lords amendments.
	In respect of Prorogation, I hope that it will be possible to prorogue no later than Thursday 27 November. The House will understand that this is subject to the progress of business in both Houses, but that looks the most likely date at present.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business.
	Following on from this morning's Energy and Climate Change questions, I remind the Leader of the House that the Energy Secretary gave a commitment a month ago that he would require action from the energy companies on fuel prices, or would take action himself. One month on, no action has been taken. This morning, the Energy Secretary committed to give a report to the House on his meeting with the energy companies, which takes place on Monday. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that report will be given via an oral statement to the House to give Members an opportunity to question the Energy Secretary, and when will that statement be made?
	The issue of the programme motion on yesterday's business has just been raised again in questions to the Leader of the House. I know that business questions are about future business, not past business, but I ask the Leader of the House whether she really learned anything from yesterday's debate. Does she not realise the strength of feeling in this House when the Government unnecessarily curtail House business in this way? Frankly, what happened yesterday was a gross discourtesy to the House and an example of gross mismanagement of business. Will she give a commitment that in future she will put the interests of the House ahead of those of the Government and give sufficient time for Back Benchers to be able to express their views?
	This week, the World Economic Forum confirmed that the UK has, for the second successive year, fallen in world gender equality rankings. Taking into account issues such as the gender pay gap, economic participation and educational achievement, the WEF now ranks the UK below nations such as Latvia and the Philippines. The report highlights the importance of making use of the full potential of women in the workplace. Will the right hon. and learned Lady, in her role as Minister for Women and Equality, therefore make a statement to the House to confirm whether the Government will support our equal pay and flexible working Bill?
	The right hon. and learned Lady has made much of the fact that the Government will bring forward an equality Bill in the next Session. As she is the Minister for Women and Equality, the expectation was that she would lead the Bill through the House of Commons, but we now learn that that will be done by the Solicitor-General—indeed, her headed notepaper describes her as "Solicitor-General and Equality Bill Lead". I understand from the Library that in the past two decades only four Bills have been taken through the House by a Law Officer. Why has the right hon. and learned Lady been sidelined in this way?
	We very much welcome the independent investigation announced by the Government yesterday into the tragic case of baby P in Haringey. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the findings of that inquiry will be made public, and will the Children Secretary come to the House to make a statement on those findings in the new Session?
	On a more general point, can we at some stage have a general debate on the social work profession? Most social workers do a vital job in exceptionally difficult circumstances, but the chief executive of the NSPCC said yesterday that they did not have enough training and support and were heavily engaged in paperwork and bureaucracy. I think that a debate on social work would be appropriate and timely.
	Finally, last year, in his Mansion House speech, the Prime Minister spoke of
	"an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London".
	Within months, there was the first run on a UK bank for a century. In April this year, he said to the House:
	"even in difficult global times, we are continuing to create jobs and continuing to bring unemployment down."—[ Official Report, 23 April 2008; Vol. 474, c. 1309.]
	Figures released yesterday show that unemployment has gone up to 1.8 million—its highest level for 13 years—so it is now higher than when Labour came to office. People are losing their jobs, businesses are going under and homes are being repossessed. I ask the Leader of the House yet again: when can we have a general debate in Government time on the state of the economy?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady asked about the Energy Secretary's meeting with the energy companies, and just a few minutes before these questions, the Energy Secretary has been held to account by the House. If he has any future specific announcements to make, he will no doubt bring them to the House.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the programme motion yesterday, and whether I had learned any lessons. The reality is that we spent two hours discussing the timing—two hours of concern about the length of time given for debate. An amendment could have been tabled to our programme motion, which we laid before the House seven days before the matter was debated. If a proposal for an extra hour's debate on regional Committees had been introduced by the Opposition, or from those on our Back Benches, it stands to reason that we would have accepted it. They could have done that, instead of our spending two hours discussing timing. I have learned that the Opposition perhaps need to be encouraged to table amendments, rather than fulminate for two hours when they have failed to do so. That is what I have learned, and I would ask what the right hon. Lady has learned. We are all clearly in a learning environment.
	The right hon. Lady asked about world gender equality, and mentioned the equality Bill. I am grateful that she will actively support that Bill when it is introduced after it is announced in the Queen's Speech. She also said something rather curious about my having allegedly been "sidelined" on equality, which shows a misunderstanding of the movement for women's equality. I do not own that movement, so it is not a question of my being sidelined. We should have more women Ministers, more women Members of Parliament, and more action taken by women in voluntary organisations throughout the country; that is not a question of being sidelined, but of the agenda being mainstreamed. I have overall responsibility for the equality Bill, and the Solicitor-General will lead the Bill through the House, just as the Attorney-General took the lead in the House of Lords on the Counter-Terrorism Bill. The Law Officers are able not only to give advice to the Government but to lead Bills through the House, and the Solicitor-General will do an excellent job. She will have my full support.
	What is so terribly tragic about the case of baby P, the baby in Haringey killed by his parents, is not only that a baby should have been killed in such horrible circumstances, but that there appear to have been up to 60 missed opportunities to save that baby's life. There were 60 occasions when the family and the baby were seen by social workers, police and health professionals, which is why everyone finds this case so particularly tragic. We all want to ensure that lessons are learned. Children, Schools and Families questions will take place on Monday.
	The right hon. Lady raised the issue of the economy, and particularly jobs. For any individual, in whatever circumstance, to lose their job is a matter of great concern. Many people worry not only when they will find their next job, but if they will lose their house in the meantime. That is why we are introducing extra help with mortgages and why we are putting extra investment into Jobcentre Plus, and into private and voluntary sector organisations that can help people to find their next job. In the summer, we had a record high number of 30 million jobs in the economy. In the last quarter, according to the available figures, there were still something like 600,000 vacancies in the economy. It is important that we try, by stabilising the economy, recapitalising the banks, taking international action, introducing public sector projects and helping small businesses, to ensure that people do not lose their jobs. However, if people do lose their jobs, we must ensure that every bit of help possible is available to them.
	I said that we would have the pre-Budget report on Monday week. Shortly thereafter, on 3 December, there will be five days of debate on the Queen's Speech. The No. 1 priority—our top concern, as I am sure it is right hon. Lady's—is the effect of the economic crisis on all aspects of life for businesses and families. We want to ensure that the House has ample opportunity to hold Ministers to account and have general debates on the economy.
	After the matter was raised in last week's business questions, I looked back from the beginning of October till now, and found that there have been no fewer than 12 occasions on which the House has had an opportunity, whether through debates or statements, to raise economic issues. If Members have an opportunity to hold a Treasury Minister to account and make speeches, does it matter whether it is technically in Government time or in the debate after the Queen's Speech, which happens in Government time but for which the Opposition choose the subjects? It is important for the House to debate the economy, and for the public to see that we are doing so and holding Treasury Ministers to account. I will ensure that there is a continuous stream of statements and debates on the economy and that the House has plenty of opportunity to discuss it.

Anne Moffat: I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend had time to view the "Dispatches" programme on Channel 4 last night about children who have been mutilated, abused and killed in Nigeria because they were accused of being witches. The practice is blamed on the Church, which is involved in it, claiming that it is part of a Christian reading of the Bible. Has the world gone mad? May we have a debate on the crisis in Nigeria, and on protecting those innocent children?

Harriet Harman: I will raise my hon. Friend's point with my colleagues in the Foreign Office and in the Department for International Development. We want to support human rights not only in this country but throughout the world.

Simon Hughes: I thank the Leader of the House for assisting in ensuring that we have a statement today from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the Post Office card account and that it will be made to the House first. That is welcome and appreciated.
	As the Leader of the House plans future business, will she reflect on a matter that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) raised but that is of widespread concern? Yesterday, the Government were defeated once, withdrew twice and came within three votes of being defeated a second time. They managed to impose their will about the structure of Committees in England by using their majorities in Scotland and Wales—they have the majority of the popular vote in neither place. Will the Leader of the House reflect on whether she is serious about the sort of discussion that she hinted she is willing to offer on those controversial matters?
	Yesterday's business was controversial and I am sure that more time could have been given for debating it. Today we have a topical debate on combating obesity, which is important but not topical, given that there are such issues as the safety of young children, youth unemployment, general employment and the state of the economy to discuss. Those are huge matters, which are much more topical, by any definition, than combating obesity. May we please have a structure for discussing the subjects for topical debates before they are announced? Even if the Deputy Leader of the House, using false constitutional arguments, claims that the House should not have a general business Committee, will the Leader of the House consider whether we can have a business Committee that is representative of the parties of the House to examine topical debates? At least we could then learn whether that was a good precedent that could be applied more widely.
	Again, it is welcome that the Chancellor will come to the House to make a statement on the pre-Budget report on Monday week. However, it is nonsensical not to have a general debate about what the statement should contain, but simply to respond to it. I hazard a guess that the Chancellor will make some announcements that are intended to have effect before the Budget. I am sure that the Chancellor is not just going to tell us what his thoughts are for next year without wanting to do something now. Colleagues in the House ought to have an opportunity to debate that before Monday week. There is plenty of time next week, but if the Leader of the House can find no other way, may I ask that the topical debate next week, ahead of the pre-Budget report, be on the economy and be extended to the whole of Thursday?
	Lastly, the Public Accounts Committee has today published an important report on energy prices, which has made it clear, among other things, that a large number of people pay higher bills when they change energy supplier. Please may we have an opportunity before the winter to discuss the urgent matter of energy prices, on the basis of the Public Accounts Committee report and the many other reports that show that we pay higher energy prices than almost any other country in Europe?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman raised the defeat in one of the votes yesterday. That was because the vote was on House business and was therefore on a free vote. That is the way of the world. When there is a whipped vote, we expect to win but do not always do so; when there is an unwhipped vote, we hope to win but do not always succeed. That is the way of things. It is rather odd that the hon. Gentleman is complaining that our position was defeated on an unwhipped vote. That should prove to him that there was a free vote. Indeed, I would have expected him to complain more vociferously if we had won all the votes, which last night we most assuredly didn't, thank you very much—says she with great good grace.
	If something is controversial, that does not mean we should not bring it to the House and offer hon. Members the decision. Just because the proposal for regional Committees was controversial, it does not mean that we should not have the right to put it forward. So we put forward the proposal, and it was controversial, and strong arguments were advanced on all sides. We are proceeding, but let me remind all those who voted against proceeding—and who did not succeed in that vote—that we will be reviewing the proposal, which will run only for an experimental period. I hope that in that period even those who voted against the proposal will put themselves forward to join the Committees and make them work. Then we will see whether they are successful in holding to account big organisations that are important to their regions, but which are currently not properly accountable.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned topical debates and said that worklessness and the economy were more topical than the obesity report that we have chosen for today. However, I remind him that on 23 October we had a topical debate on work and skills; on Thursday 30 October we had a topical debate on business in the regions, much of which was about employment; and on Wednesday 5 November we had a general debate, chosen by the Government, on work and welfare, so there have been a number of such debates. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of employment and unemployment, however, and we want to ensure that the House can continue to give it the priority that we all know it deserves.
	The hon. Gentleman made what I regard as a slightly novel proposal—that we should have a pre pre-Budget report. The problem with having an economic debate immediately before the pre-Budget report is that if it is just a few days before the Monday of the pre-Budget report, the Chancellor will not be able to say a great deal in that debate. The reason the Government introduced the pre-Budget report was that previously we had just the Budget in March—the announcement was made and that was it. This Government introduced the pre-Budget report, which was an innovation, so that the Chancellor could announce what would be in the Budget and make any necessary interim announcements. However, I hear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion for a topical debate on the economy. Bearing in mind what other hon. Members have said, let me assure him that we always keep our mind open to whether there should be a topical debate on the economy, irrespective of the upcoming pre-Budget report.

Emily Thornberry: May we have a debate on the effect of the credit crunch and the lowering of house prices on leaseholders who bought their flats on large council estates? As I know my right hon. and learned Friend is aware, many of them are on low incomes and face huge bills as a result of major ongoing works and, in particular, the decent homes programme, which in every other respect is to be welcomed.

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. Along with our hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), she has been a champion for the protection of leaseholders. Many people bought former council properties, but then, with the big investment in council estates following the decent homes programme, those on modest or low incomes, including retired people, were clobbered with bills of up to £40,000. While house prices were rising, it was possible for those people to have a charge taken on their homes, so that they would not have to stump up the cash immediately. With the fall in property prices, however, they have faced problems. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing has been making the issue a priority, and I am aware that a number of hon. Members have had meetings with Ministers. Perhaps I should suggest a general meeting between the Minister and all Members with leaseholders in their constituencies who face such problems, and then perhaps we can come forward with an announcement. We are talking about people on very low incomes or perhaps in retirement who suddenly find five-figure sum bills arriving on their doormats and being told that they have to pay. That is something that, along with other problems in the housing market, we cannot turn away from.

Michael Spicer: Will the right hon. and learned Lady make the Speaker's advisory committee a formal Committee of the House?

Harriet Harman: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the Members Estimate Committee, the House of Commons Commission or the Advisory Panel on Members' Allowances?

Michael Spicer: The Advisory Panel on Members' Allowances.

Harriet Harman: I am not aware of a formal proposal from the Advisory Panel on Members' Allowances that it should be made a Committee of the House rather than being advisory to the Speaker, but if it did make such a proposal, it would no doubt be considered by the House and above all by the Speaker.

David Drew: Today's news that there are problems with money transfers through MoneyGram and Western Union is giving the issue some long overdue publicity. A constituent of mine encountered a problem when she was trying to lease a flat. Although she was assured that no transfer would take place, one did take place—indeed, it went through the Post Office—and she was defrauded of money. Thankfully she has received the money back, but the problem is growing and affects many of our constituents. Will my right hon. and learned Friend have a word with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor to ensure that we are looking at regulation? Otherwise, the problem will continue to grow and many more people could be defrauded.

Harriet Harman: I know that this is a concern and, as a number of hon. Members have raised it, perhaps it would be a suitable subject for a Westminster Hall debate.

Sammy Wilson: This week the Serious Organised Crime Agency shelved plans to name drug barons, people traffickers and other criminals who have had financial reporting orders placed on them, because doing so would breach their human rights. The purpose of naming them was to make it more difficult for them to reoffend, and to help the public to co-operate with the police in reporting suspicious financial transactions. Will the Leader of the House give us an opportunity to debate human rights legislation, which increasingly seems to distort the law in favour of criminals?

Harriet Harman: I am not aware of the specific case that the hon. Gentleman mentions. However, the purpose of naming those who have been made subject to orders or found guilty of offences is to ensure that those who might be at risk know the situation; to deter people by showing them that they will be named publicly; and to enable the public both to know that those who reoffend are under an order and to report them. I do not think that anything in the Human Rights Act 1998 prevents a proper and proportionate response to curtailing future criminal activities, but I shall look into the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions and raise it with an appropriate Minister.

Anne Snelgrove: Yesterday, after a rather fractious afternoon in the Chamber, it was wonderful to see the House come together to welcome the setting up of the Speaker's Conference to improve representation in the House. May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on bringing that proposal forward and her opposite numbers on supporting it? What action is being taken to improve the representation of women, and members of the ethnic and black communities, on public bodies? That is often a very good preparation for parliamentary life, so if we can get that representation right now, we will have people who are prepared and ready to come into the House as soon as we have made a decision on how that can be done.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is important for public bodies to have people who have been selected on merit, from the widest pool, with the broadest range of experience, to ensure that they can make the right decisions and give the right advice to Government and agencies. It is also an important role for people to choose before they step forward further into public life and enter the House. We have discussed with the Commissioner for Public Appointments a strengthening of her remit. That will be in the equality Bill, with the purpose of providing a more specific focus on ensuring diversity in public appointments.
	The real missing voice in local councils is that of Asian women. There are something like 145 Asian women councillors; but to be representative in local government, there should be 1,000. We have set up an all-party taskforce under Baroness Pola Uddin and when she has concluded her work, we will report back to the House.
	I thank my hon. Friend for her comments on the Speaker's Conference, and pay tribute to you, Mr. Speaker, for taking up this very important initiative. I believe that it will be an historic contribution of your Speakership.

George Young: The Leader of the House has announced that there will be a statement by the Chancellor on the pre-Budget report on Monday week, but she has not announced any time for a debate on it. Last year, there was no debate on the pre-Budget report, and she was good enough to concede to me and others that that was less than satisfactory. This year's pre-Budget statement is probably the most important statement that the Government will make in this Parliament, and it is quite wrong that we should have no time to debate it, and unacceptable that it should be rolled into a general debate on the Government's legislative programme. Will she reflect on her plans and make provision for a debate in Government time on the pre-Budget report?

Harriet Harman: I take the right hon. Gentleman's points seriously. Obviously, he is saying that there needs to be a statement with ample time, and an opportunity thereafter for debate, so that hon. Members can make speeches and the Treasury can respond. I will keep that under review.
	At this time of year, we must ensure that there is enough time for the Report and Lords amendments stages of the many Bills that are coming back from the other place. The No. 1 priority for the Government is the economy. We certainly have no intention of having anything less than a full debate on it in the House.

Ian Cawsey: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the concern among companies that operate in many of the ports around the country, including Goole, over the new business rates arrangements and the fact that they are to be retrospectively applied to 2005. I and other hon. Members were grateful that the Prime Minister met us a couple of weeks ago and offered to look into the matter and give what assistance he could. Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for a statement to be made to the House, so that we can find out what that assistance will be and how those companies will be helped through these difficult times?

Harriet Harman: I know that my hon. Friend, and other hon. Members, have raised this matter on behalf of their constituents with the relevant Ministers and the Prime Minister. If there is to be a response from Government, there will doubtless be a statement.

Stewart Hosie: As we move into this recession, we have seen unemployment rise massively in the past three months, and forecasts for the future are pretty gloomy. Given that it is our job to try to protect and preserve jobs, it does not appear to make a great deal of sense for the Government to press ahead with their support for the Lloyds TSB-HBOS merger which, it is reported today, could lead to the loss of 60,000 jobs. Edinburgh and Lothian Members, including the Chancellor, are conscious of that, and MPs in the Halifax area are also aware of the concerns in their constituencies. May we have a debate, in Government time, so that the Government can justify their continued support for the shotgun merger of Lloyds TSB and HBOS, and the potential loss of jobs, and to hear the arguments from both sides of the House? Independent recapitalisation of both banks would provide as much stability as the merger, and it would preserve and protect lots of jobs.

Harriet Harman: We are very concerned about the protection of financial services, and ensuring that there is lending to small businesses, families and in the housing market. The service provided by the financial services industry is important, but it is also an important employer, so we are concerned when we see job losses. That is why the Chancellor has made it clear that he will do whatever it takes to stabilise and protect all existing financial services organisations, including taking over Northern Rock and the action that we have taken on Bradford & Bingley. When the best action to take is supporting and enabling a merger, as is the case with Lloyds TSB and HBOS, we will take it.
	We are well aware of the impact that the situation is having in Yorkshire, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, with Bradford & Bingley and the Halifax, and the Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber has been working with colleagues and agencies in the area. We are also concerned about the effect on Scotland. Certainly, we will leave no stone unturned, but it is not right for any Member to suggest that there is some sort of magic wand alternative to the Lloyds TSB-HBOS proposal. If there were, and if it stood up to scrutiny, it would be there for consideration, but we regard the merger as the best option.

Andrew Miller: In my right hon. and learned Friend's opening statement, she said that we were all in a learning environment. Will she consider setting up a series of seminars to help people who are not terribly experienced in the House—for example, to show them how to set out amendments, or to ensure that they know that it is proper to address the House through the Speaker?

Harriet Harman: As my hon. Friend will know, that is very much a matter for the Speaker.

Lee Scott: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the amount of compensation being paid by the NHS in relation to negligence claims? In London alone, in the past three years, that sum, including legal fees, has totalled nearly a quarter of a billion pounds.

Harriet Harman: May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman seeks an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall or the House on the matter? The first point of principle is that we do not want any mistakes in the NHS that cause pain and suffering, quite apart from financial loss. However, if there is negligence in the NHS, it is right for those who suffer to be compensated. This is an important issue, and the hon. Gentleman should seek an Adjournment debate on it.

Mark Fisher: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate on the work of bailiffs? In the present financial climate, such work is sadly likely to increase. If her constituency mailbag is anything like mine, she will be learning of an increasing number of hard and painful cases. Being a bailiff is a difficult job, but the way in which they conduct themselves can make a difference to the dignity of people in financial stress.

Harriet Harman: We have increased the regulation of bailiffs. This is a case in which what is sometimes derided as red tape is important to protect people who are very vulnerable. It is not only important to have the right regulation in place, but to ensure that it is properly enforced. I will ask the Minister concerned to write to my hon. Friend to explain not only the current state of the regulations, but how they are being effectively policed.

Jo Swinson: May we have a statement from the Leader of the House on progress towards publishing MPs' expenses? It was supposed to happen this autumn but, so far, there has been no sign of it. Will she confirm when MPs' expenses will be published, and explain the delay?

Harriet Harman: The House authorities are in the process of formulating the data for the last five years for Members' expenses, to put them into the public domain in a proper manner. As the hon. Lady can imagine, it is a major undertaking, and the authorities are working on it, with additional staff, as fast as they can. At the same time, they are paying out current expenses, which we do not want to be delayed. That work is very much under way.
	May I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Lady on her excellent contribution on the Speaker's Conference last night?

Jim Sheridan: May we have a debate on adequate funding for public services? If we have learned anything from the recent by-election in Glenrothes, it is that people respect and want decent public services. Although it sounds popular to announce a council tax freeze, it comes with consequences, which often affect the most vulnerable people in our society. Given that the official Opposition are going down the same route, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the Government will not be tempted to do likewise?

Harriet Harman: I would certainly like to pay tribute to and welcome the new Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy), who was introduced to the House yesterday. When I was up in Glenrothes, I felt very strongly that it is not only elderly people themselves who are worried about increases in charges, as whole families then become concerned about their older relatives. We all need to recognise that care and support of older people in their own homes—it is called adult social care, but it is really the common-sense issue of looking after elderly people—should move much higher up all our political agendas.

Brian Binley: As you will know, Mr. Speaker, many pensioners are in dire straits, as about 1.8 million are judged to be in poverty, we have pretty much the lowest basic pension in Europe and recent interest rate cuts have hit them massively in respect of their often very small investments. Will the Leader of the House consider—and with some urgency—having a debate on the position of our pensioners, who are facing, as I said, such serious challenges?

Harriet Harman: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we remain very concerned about the position of retired people in the current economic climate. I responded a few moments ago to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) about leaseholders. Many of them are people who, on retiring with a lump sum, bought their council property as leaseholders but now find themselves facing bills. That is just one example of the problems they face in the current economic climate. We know the increase in energy costs is particularly difficult for older people who spend more time at home, need more heat as they move around less, and often have less disposable income than younger people. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are very much focused on the concerns of retired people. I would also remind him, however, that we operate from a position that is now much better than it was in 1997. If we take into account all the different categories of people—single people without children, couples without children, couples with children, retired people and so forth—we find that the people whose income in percentage terms has increased most among the whole population are single women in retirement. I am not complacent about that, but the hon. Gentleman should recognise that although we have more to do, we have done a great deal since his party were in government.

Gwyn Prosser: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time to debate the behaviour of Dover Harbour Board, whose chief executive wants to get rid of 200 port workers and whose actions have led to the Unite union taking strike action next week? Does she agree that such action by the board, without any negotiations with the unions, is thoroughly irresponsible?

Harriet Harman: At this time, public authorities should not be making people unemployed. We want all public authorities not only to provide the services that they should, but to refrain from doing anything that will make unemployment worse. I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who I believe is responsible for the port authorities, to look further into this matter forthwith.

Edward Garnier: May I ask the Leader of the House for an early debate on work in prisons? She will know that one of the best ways in which to reduce reoffending when people leave prison is to find them a job. One of the saddest things to have happened over the past few weeks is the closing down of the Barbed project at HMP Coldingley. That project provided real and well paid work for a number of prisoners, but it has been closed down as a consequence of the Government's introduction of the core day. That is utterly regrettable; may we have a debate about it?

Harriet Harman: I recognise the hon. and learned Gentleman's long-standing interest in these issues and the sophistication of his approach, which he has demonstrated again today. It is important to do whatever we can when people are in prison to ensure that they do not promptly reoffend when they come out of prison, so I will raise the hon. and learned Gentleman's point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor.

Barry Gardiner: Yesterday, a group of all-party MPs met senior staffers from the Senate offices in Washington to discuss issues of climate change. One point that was made forcefully to us was that labour organisations and unions in this country are so much more ahead and part of the debate than they are in the United States. Will my right hon. and learned Friend find ways in which we could encourage further dialogue between labour organisations here and in the US, to ensure that we progress the climate change agenda?

Harriet Harman: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change recognises, as does my hon. Friend, that it is not just the work of national Governments that matters, as it is also important to prompt work internationally and for organisations in civil society to work in partnership on climate change issues. I will raise my hon. Friend's point with my right hon. Friend.

David Heath: This is going to sound very trivial, but it is actually quite important to our landscape and countryside. May we have a debate on conkers or, perhaps more properly, on invasive pathogens on native British trees? Horse chestnuts are being assailed by Phytophthora, leaf miner caterpillar and, most seriously of all, by Pseudomonas syringae—a new and very aggressive disease, which has affected possibly 50 to 75 per cent. of the native horse chestnut population. We do not want to see the same sort of depredation that happened to elms as a result of Dutch elm disease, so may we have a debate to discuss what can be done?

Harriet Harman: Just as elms were part of and defined the landscape of England, Wales and Scotland, so, too, do horse chestnuts after the demise of those elms. The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. It is partly to do with viruses and partly to do with the effect of climate change. Indeed, this is just one manifestation of climate change, which is why we must step up all-party action on it, both nationally and internationally.

David Chaytor: For the best part of 40 years, since the Government of Harold Wilson established the excellent Girobank, the Post Office has been involved in one way or another with banking services. In view of last week's interesting suggestion by Lord Mandelson about a possible future role for the Post Office in banking services, and regardless of what our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions says in his statement at 12.30, does the Leader of the House agree that the credit crunch has completely transformed the debate about the future of the Post Office? Once we have absorbed what our right hon. Friend's statement means in its entirety, would it not be useful if we had a topical debate on the future role of the Post Office in the banking system?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is right that the credit crunch has provided an imperative to think afresh about the delivery of financial services. He mentions the Post Office's role in providing such services, but there is also the issue of credit unions. My hon. Friend referred to the Business Secretary, Lord Mandelson, who is already aware of those issues, and our hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) has also made some proposals; they will be under active consideration.

Paul Goodman: Returning to the theme of being in a learning environment, several of my constituents are as a result of computer problems having difficulty getting into one because they cannot get the education maintenance allowance to which they are entitled. I took their cases up with the Learning and Skills Council on 7 November and I recently received a reply saying simply that all providers will be kept up to date. We need to do a bit better than that, so may we have a specific date and will the Education Secretary come to the Dispatch Box to tell us when it will be?

Harriet Harman: The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families will answer questions on Monday. The hon. Gentleman can raise the matter then to establish whether the Secretary of State has anything to add to the written ministerial statement that he has already made on this topic.

Albert Owen: Last Tuesday I had the honour of opening the new search and rescue force headquarters at RAF Valley in my constituency. On that day, an international conference took place enabling delegates from all over the world to learn from the British way, which is the best way when it comes to rescue.
	My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the search and rescue force works with a number of partners, including the police and agencies such as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Will she join me in applauding that agency's professionalism? May we have a debate on the wages and conditions of those professional people, many of whom survive on an income just above the minimum wage?

Harriet Harman: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the search and rescue organisations and the partnership which, as he said, includes both the police and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. I also join him in acknowledging the work of that agency, which is not just about search and rescue but about regulation—not red tape, but important regulation that preserves the safety of vessels at sea and protects the environment by ensuring that goods are transported safely.

Douglas Hogg: May we have an early debate, in Government time, on the losses of depositors in the Isle of Man banks? I realise that we had an Adjournment debate on the subject last week, but that is not sufficient. I myself do not call for Governments to compensate in the absence of fault, nor are Governments the guarantors of last resort; but the House must have an opportunity to explore whether or not the Government were at fault. There are issues of parity to be considered. Furthermore, the question arises of whether the Government should loan money to the compensatory authorities in the jurisdictions, to enable those jurisdictions to compensate to the extent of the schemes then in place.

Harriet Harman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a substantial point about a situation that is both very complex and, for the people whose money is frozen or lost or who are worried about it, very simple indeed. I shall raise it with my colleagues in the Treasury to establish whether a written ministerial statement is necessary in respect of those with deposits in Isle of Man financial institutions.

Anne Main: Along with many other hon. Members, I met firefighters yesterday. May we have a debate on the Floor of the House about the conditions in which our firefighters are now expected to work? I was extremely concerned to learn that there has been no hot-fire training for established firefighters in Hertfordshire since 2001, and that many are still expected to use communication equipment that does not stand up to heat. I understand that there are 40 outstanding policy recommendations relating to firefighters and firefighting incidents, and I believe that we need an urgent debate to discuss the future of our firefighting services.

Harriet Harman: I welcome what the hon. Lady has said, and will draw it to the attention of relevant Ministers.
	Once again we have heard about the beneficial effect of regulations. This is not red tape or a health-and-safety culture, but proper regulation to protect people who are doing a very important job, and I welcome the fact that an Opposition Member has supported that rather than decrying it.

Andrew Murrison: The Leader of the House will be as concerned as I am to learn that troops who are being deployed with ever-increasing amounts of heavy equipment are exceeding troop flight weight limits, which means that their personal kit must be left behind to be sent on at some later date. I have also learned, from a memo dated 10 October 2008 from General Richards, that good will parcels sent by generous members of the public may not be dispatched, which is not good in the run-up to Christmas. Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is a debate in Government time on the common factor, namely the inadequacy of the United Kingdom airbridge?

Harriet Harman: A priority for us in Government is the support and protection of our troops in theatre. I will raise the specific points made by the hon. Gentleman with my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, and will ask them to write to him.

Andrew Pelling: Treasury Ministers have been extraordinarily generous with their time in allowing themselves to be held to account in the House, given that they are trying to manage one of the most significant financial crises in the last 100 years. When might I have an opportunity to raise the important issue of pensioners who have suffered a considerable reduction in their incomes? HSBC is currently targeting pensioners with a bonus-option account paying just 1.5 per cent. in interest.
	Will the Leader of the House also tell me when we can raise another important issue? The Paulson plan in the United States seems to be failing. It has now begun bailing out credit card and student loan debt, which is a sign that the financial crisis is becoming a great deal worse.

Harriet Harman: As I have just told the House, the Chancellor will present his pre-Budget report on Monday week. I am sure that the important points raised by the hon. Gentleman can be raised again on that occasion.

Peter Bone: In September 2006, a 16-year-old child came to this country from eastern Europe expecting to be given work in a bar. In fact, she was sold into sex slavery. She was raped, beaten, held at gunpoint, and moved from brothel to brothel. Thankfully, the Metropolitan police unit that deals with human trafficking rescued that young girl, and I am pleased to say that the trafficking gang were given a total of 52 years in prison. What is very disturbing, however, is that the unit has now been disbanded. May we have a statement from the Home Office explaining why it has done that?

Harriet Harman: There is no lessening of the work done by not only the Metropolitan police, but police authorities throughout the country, to deal with the trafficking of young girls. I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Gentleman has consistently done on the issue, both as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on trafficking of women and children and in raising it in the House.
	The case to which the hon. Gentleman referred is the Plakici case, which I referred to the Court of Appeal. That is why there was such a large increase in the sentence. A sentence of 22 years sends the deterrent message that the courts in this country will not tolerate human trafficking.
	As the hon. Gentleman may know, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced that she will be presenting legislation to deal with human trafficking. We must not only tackle the traffickers—who must be prosecuted and given big deterrent sentences—and protect the victims, but recognise the responsibility of the men who pay for sex in brothels up and down the country. We must tackle what is described as the demand side of this terrible trade. My right hon. Friend's legislation will ensure that men who have sex with victims of trafficking are prosecuted, found guilty and brought to justice.

Philip Hollobone: This week the independent monitoring board for prisons highlighted the problems caused by the use of mobile phones by prisoners in prisons for the purpose of organising crime, particularly relating to drugs, both inside and outside prison walls. When may we have a statement from the Ministry of Justice about the action that it intends to take to tackle the problem, which I hope will include the installation of mobile phone blockers in Her Majesty's prisons?

Harriet Harman: I shall raise the hon. Gentleman's important point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice, and will ensure that my right hon. Friend writes to him. Obviously prisoners need to communicate with their families to ensure that they do not break down while a family member is in prison, but the last thing that anyone wants is for them to organise crimes from their mobile phones in prison.

Post Office Card Account

James Purnell: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the future of the Post Office card account.
	The Government created the Post Office card account in 2003. We announced that there would be a successor in 2006. On the basis of the legal advice that we received at the time, we put the contract out to tender. During that process, I have been unable to comment publicly or privately on the matter. I know that that has been frustrating for hon. Members, and I thank them for their patience and understanding.  [Laughter.]
	I also know that all hon. Members would agree that the Post Office is at the heart of their communities. It reaches the places and people that no one else reaches. That is why the Government have invested £2 billion in the Post Office since 1997; why we have, for the first time, set out access criteria to preserve its reach; and why we will invest another £1.7 billion between now and 2011.
	There is no doubt that the Post Office card account is central to maintaining a viable post office network. It not only generates a key part of the Post Office's income, but brings with it a footfall that is vital to individual sub-postmasters. Post Office card account customers have shown how much they value the service through the postcard campaign that has resulted in large postbags for hon. Members over the last few months.
	It is also clear that maintaining a viable Post Office network is even more critical now than it was two years ago. The financial turbulence that began in America and the string of consequences that followed it have understandably made many people, particularly the most vulnerable in our society, more concerned about financial transactions. The Post Office, with its trusted brand, is seen as safe, secure and reliable as a provider of financial services.
	So I believe that now cannot be the time for the Government to do anything that would put that network at risk, particularly as post offices are often the only providers of banking services in both rural and deprived urban areas. The Post Office also has a proven record of being able to move billions of pounds in cash safely around the country and prides itself on meeting the needs of vulnerable customers. Sub-postmasters know their customers and provide a social service as well as a banking service. Delivering this vital social service for groups in our communities who need it most is not only an objective of the Post Office. It is an objective that the Government share passionately as well. To safeguard that service, we must help and support a viable post office network.
	For that reason, I can announce today that the Government have now decided to cancel the current unfinished procurement exercise and to award a new contract for the continuation of the Post Office card account directly to Post Office Ltd, within the terms of the relevant EC regulations. The contract will run initially from April 2010 to March 2015 with the possibility of an extension beyond that.
	I recognise, of course, that this decision will disappoint those other bidders who had reached the final stage of the competition. I want to emphasise to the House, as I have done to them personally, that my decision does not reflect in any way on their ability to have provided the services in question. Nor is it a step we have taken lightly. We recognise the importance of competition in the awarding of public contracts, but we have concluded that, in these circumstances, protecting vulnerable groups by preserving a viable Post Office network justifies the award of a contract outside the competitive process. These are exceptional times and we believe that this is a proper and proportionate response. The Post Office considers that this decision, along with the extra money invested by this Government, will ensure a commercially viable future for the post offices that will be in place after the modernisation and network change programme is complete.
	I said that I would make a decision as soon as I could. I said that I would not rush the decision. I said that what was important was that we made the right decision. I believe this is the right decision. It is good news for our constituents, good news for Post Office Ltd and good news for sub-postmasters. I trust that it will be welcomed by hon. Members, and I commend it to the House.

Alan Duncan: May I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of the statement?
	Although this is a work and pensions contract, it of course has massive implications for the Post Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) is in the midlands today, so I am pleased to take his place at the Dispatch Box.
	Today's statement is disarray dressed up as decision. The announcement is long overdue. We expected it in July, we were promised it for October but we have it only now. It is clear that the Government were looking for every possible way of giving the contract to someone other than the Post Office, but in the end, they simply did not dare. Today marks a great success for those who have campaigned for the Post Office and a humiliating climbdown for the Government who have done everything they possibly could to find a way of awarding it to somebody else.
	The Government insisted on having a tender, and today, after months of an expensive process, they have simply binned that tender altogether. Why did the Government not do from the start what the Irish did and award it without a tender? What has changed since the beginning of the process? How much did the aborted process cost? Will the Secretary of State be compensating those other bidders who were not successful?
	Is it not the case that the tender terms were a complete mess and opened up the award of the contract to great confusion? Can the Secretary of State confirm that the legal status of the decision is 100 per cent. watertight? Can he tell the House that there is no risk of or scope for any legal challenge from anybody who was not awarded the contract? What is his estimate of the revenue that Post Office branches will enjoy from this new contract compared with the one that currently exists? Is it not the case that the POCA is absolutely essential to some of the most vulnerable, and as unemployment rises—in large part thanks to the Government's incompetence—even through the 3 million mark, that POCA will become even more significant during the economic downturn?
	We have proposed expanding POCA so that it can be used by account holders to pay their utility bills by a form of direct debit, not only ensuring lower tariffs for the most vulnerable customers but giving a £20 million boost to Post Office revenues. Will the Secretary of State pledge to look again at this sensible proposal and undertake to adopt it?
	Can the Secretary of State also confirm that the proposed new contract fully complies with all the requirements and stipulations laid down by the EU and that the EU has already signified that this is the case?  [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House listened with courtesy to the Minister and I think it should do the same for the Opposition spokesman.

Alan Duncan: We are still waiting for the results of the Hooper review into the future of the Royal Mail, which will have serious implications for the whole network, but this keeps being delayed too. Will the Minister confirm when the Hooper report will be published?
	Over the last two years, the Government's handling of the Post Office has undermined its business, and caused painful turmoil and growing pain for postmasters and communities. We have seen the compulsory closure, on a highly arbitrary basis, of thousands of branches. The new Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, who is unaccountable to this House, has spoken recklessly of privatising the Post Office. His letter to the Prime Minister has been leaked,  The Guardian has been briefed and the talk of opening up the post office to greater financial services is exactly the policy we have been advocating for two years, but which at every turn the Government have opposed.
	Post offices, communities and many of the country's most needy people will today be breathing a sigh of relief that the card account has been re-awarded to the Post Office, but they will know that the Government have been shamed into taking this decision from a mixture of internal weakness and division in their own ranks. This is not a success for the Government, but a triumph for which campaigners deserve the credit.

James Purnell: I wish that, just once, the Opposition would come to the House and say that a decision is the right one; they could have said they supported this decision and that they would now get on with supporting post offices. The hon. Gentleman took churlishness to new levels, I think, but I will nevertheless try to answer his questions.
	This is the right decision for our customers and for communities around the country. Unfortunately, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was trying to unpick the decision rather than saying that it was the right one and moving forward. I am glad to be able to say that the decision will not be unpicked, and I will answer his points in order.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the decision required EU clearance. We do not believe that it does, and we believe that it complies with EU law. The decision has been properly and legally taken. He asked whether we would be compensating the companies that were not the successful bidders. We will compensate their reasonable costs. That is the appropriate thing to do and there is no reason why we would not do it. It is a good deal for taxpayers and means a better service for customers. The exact amount is commercially confidential and that is exactly the way in which these things are done.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about direct debits. I am reliably informed that if we had moved towards the policy of the Opposition, this decision would not have been possible. The point that he has made would have made the award of the contract to the Post Office much more difficult. It is because of our policy that we are able to award the contract to the Post Office. He accused us of disarray, so I shall tell him what the disarray was—the situation that we inherited from his Government, whereby the only policy was the benefit payment card, which was millions over budget and years behind schedule, so we had to cancel it.
	When one hears the hon. Gentleman speak, it sometimes sounds as if the POCA is a venerable British institution that has been around for decades, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) pointed out earlier this week, it is something that this Government created. We have now renewed it and we are awarding it to the Post Office, and I just wish that the hon. Gentleman had supported our decision.

Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State will know that although some people will feel that this decision could have been taken a lot earlier, it will result in widespread relief across the country—relief felt by sub-postmasters, the national pensioners action group, members of the Communication Workers Union and the all-party group on post offices; we have all campaigned so much for this to happen. Does he agree that although the decision provides a breathing space for the Post Office, now is the time to get government business and local authority business back into our post offices, and to have the Post Office as a proper bank?

James Purnell: My hon. Friend is right to say that this is a vital decision for customers, particularly vulnerable customers, who depend most on the Post Office. She is also right to pay tribute to the campaigning done by Labour Members, who have been making their point in the appropriate way. As she said, we are examining how we can find further services for the Post Office to provide, and as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) earlier this week, we will bring together a group of MPs to do exactly that.

Jennifer Willott: I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of the statement. I wish to make it clear from the outset that the Liberal Democrats are delighted at today's decision. It is good to see that the Department for Work and Pensions has listened to the vociferous opposition to the possible loss of the Post Office card account that has come from all parts of the House and from outside it. I understand that 2 million people signed a petition requesting that the POCA remained with the Post Office. Today's decision could also be seen as a response to the Liberal Democrat Opposition day debate on Monday.
	Today's statement is a strange way of going about the decision. Cancelling the procurement exercise raises huge questions, some of which have been asked by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan). I should be grateful if the Secretary of State clarified why the Department decided to cancel the contracting exercise rather than award the contract to the Post Office. Does it mean that the terms of the tender would not have allowed the Department to award the contract to the Post Office? To enable us to make our own decision on that, will he release the specifications, the invitation to tender or negotiate, and the descriptive documents, which the Government have refused to release up to this point—indeed, on Monday, he again said that he would not be able to release them. I would be grateful if he made them public now.
	The Secretary of State said that he has decided to award a contract for the continuation of the POCA within the terms of the relevant EC regulations. If he can do that now, why could he not have done it before or why did he choose not to do so? I would be grateful if he clarified that point. The reasons that he gave for the decision relate to the current economic climate. What is it about that climate that means that the Government can now reconsider? This situation leads to the suspicion that as 1,500 jobs are being lost every day in the UK, he knew that the Government could not afford to close a further 3,000 post offices—at least—with all the accompanying job losses. Will he tell us exactly what has changed?
	The Secretary of State also said that he believes that it is not the time to do anything to put the network at risk, particularly as post offices are often the only provider in rural and deprived urban areas—that is what the Liberal Democrats have been saying for the past two years, as have a number of Labour Members. As that was the case when the Government decided to put this out to tender—it remains the case—what has brought him around to our way of thinking and to deciding that now the Post Office does need to be saved? Why did he think last week that it was okay to risk the only providers in those deprived areas, but that now it is not okay to do so?
	As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said, the DWP has behaved appallingly so far on this matter; there has been delay after delay. This has been going on for nearly three years and the decision was 11 months overdue. That has caused huge stress for POCA customers, sub-postmasters and all who are concerned for their community facilities. Why has there been such a delay? It also raises issues about the cost of the process and the waste of money involved. Legal questions have already been posed about changing the competition rules halfway through the process, but this has been a waste of money not only for the bidders that did not receive the contract, but for the post offices and the Government. The Secretary of State has said that he will be providing compensation, but will he finally give us an estimate as to how much money has been wasted? Why is the amount of compensation considered to be commercially confidential? Nevertheless, I welcome today's announcement and the saving of post offices.

James Purnell: I think that that was the sound of "Focus" leaflets being pulped in their thousands. This is the right decision, and I am glad that, at the very end of her questions, the hon. Lady acknowledged that. We all know that the Liberal Democrats will want to take credit for this. She says it is their way of thinking, but the truth is that they were so confident of their way of thinking that they tabled a motion that was written by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). It was not their way of thinking at all, but that of Labour Members. We were glad to see the Liberal Democrats voting in support of his motion this week, but as we know, it had been overtaken by the changes that we had made in response to the lobbying and campaigning on behalf of their constituents carried out by my Labour colleagues.
	The hon. Lady asked me what has changed. What has changed is that there has been a significant reduction in confidence about financial transactions, and people have turned to the Post Office because of its trusted brand. The Post Office provides a service that is not only a banking service, but a social service, and that becomes even more important when people are worried about financial circumstances. In the light of that, we commissioned legal advice, which has said that this is the right way for us to proceed. The truth is that for all the heat and bluster, everyone in this Chamber agrees that this is the right way forward.
	The hon. Lady asked whether we would release the information about the tender, but as the tender has not been completed, it would be inappropriate to do so. As she knows, the advert in the  Official Journal of the European Union has been placed in the Library, and she is welcome to look at that. I am sure that she will enjoy reading it. As I said to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), this is value for money, and it is the right decision for our customers, for taxpayers and for post offices. It gives them certainty to plan up until 2015 and allows Labour Members to concentrate on building a viable post office network.

Lindsay Hoyle: This is a great day for common sense, and I wish to thank the Secretary of State for taking the right decision. I thank him on behalf of my constituents, and the vulnerable and the pensioners who use the POCA, and I thank the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses throughout the breadth of the United Kingdom for the campaign that they have led. Of course, the Select Committee on Business and Enterprise report has done a lot to advise the Government on the role that they have played. I welcome the decision and look forward to the setting up of the taskforce, which will take us beyond 2015 to ensure that post offices in the United Kingdom have a viable and sustainable future.

James Purnell: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind works, and I pay tribute to his campaigning, along with that of many Labour colleagues. I also pay tribute to the Chairman of the Business and Enterprise Committee, as it has played an important role in examining this issue, and to the Treasury Committee and its Chairman, as it, too, published an important report. My hon. Friend is right to say that we should also pay tribute to the campaign run by sub-postmasters; they have left nobody in any doubt about the importance of this account and of the network. I reassure him that my colleagues in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will be writing to him shortly about the task group that we agreed.

Peter Luff: I hope that the Secretary of State will not think that I am being churlish if I say that the words that are haunting me today are the powerful words from St. Luke about there being more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth. I genuinely welcome today's announcement, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has listened to the advice of my Committee, the Treasury Committee and the whole House on this matter. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) is right: we now have the opportunity to debate the future of the post office network and put it on a sustainable footing.
	Does the Secretary of State understand that his Department still has one very important responsibility—to ensure that its agencies get fully behind the POCA? Many of us are very concerned by the attitudes taken, especially by the Pension Service, in that respect.

James Purnell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He is right to say that this service is vital to my Department and we want to ensure that people take it up appropriately. He has brought to my attention a few instances in which that was not the case, and we have addressed them and ensured that our training is appropriate. We now have a good basis on which to move forward and ensure that the POCA serves the most vulnerable people in our community, as well as that the post office network can grow on the basis of the certainty that it provides.

John McFall: In the light of the equivocation from Opposition Members, I wish to welcome this proposal clearly and unambiguously on behalf of the Treasury Committee. Two years ago we called for the successor to the POCA to be run by the Post Office, so this is excellent news for rural and low-income communities. I have spoken to Post Office executives, and they believe that these funding proposals should be the last and that, by 2015, the service should be a universal, stand-alone bank. I am looking for a commitment from the Government to that, as well as a recommendation for a cross-departmental approach to financial inclusion, so that the Post Office can play its part in that.

James Purnell: I know that that is the intention of the Post Office, and it will make it clear that this decision provides the basis on which it can plan for that future with certainty. My right hon. Friend makes an important point about financial inclusion, and we will work closely—especially with the Treasury, but also with other Departments—to ensure that both the Post Office and credit unions can play their part, alongside the banks, in improving financial inclusion. We want to ensure, especially in the run-up to Christmas, that people are not vulnerable to the excessive loan rates charged by credit companies.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I will endeavour to accommodate as many as possible, but it would be helpful if we had one brief question from each Member and hopefully a brief answer from the Secretary of State.

David Curry: This is exactly the right decision for the large rural constituency that I represent, and I am sure that we are all grateful to Lord Mandelson for it. Does the Secretary of State recognise that it comes against the background of a significant post office closure programme and that if there is constant attrition, it will not matter what services are offered because there will be no post offices to offer them? Will he ensure that the longer-term programme is based on a minimum level of post offices? If not, it simply will not be viable.

James Purnell: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench spokesman said in March that he fully expected the network to shrink, and that is the reality that people recognise. It has been a difficult but necessary process that has put the Post Office in a viable position from which it can make progress. As I made clear in my statement, the Post Office believes that the decision will enable it to preserve a level of post office provision after the network change programme is completed. It is also worth saying that this Government introduced access criteria for the first time, and they provide exactly the sort of undertakings that the right hon. Gentleman seeks.

Ann Clwyd: This is the right decision and thousands of people in my constituency who wrote to me about this issue—especially pensioners—will be delighted by the news. It is a pity that the Opposition were caught on the back foot and cannot even bring themselves to say that it is the right thing to do. I can think of other political parties that will have to pulp their literature on this subject.

James Purnell: My right hon. Friend has campaigned very hard on behalf of her constituents, and I am glad that she welcomes the decision. I am sure that various parties will have to pulp all sorts of materials.

Hugo Swire: Yes, this is the right decision, but it was a waste of time and money to have the tender in the first place. The most important aspect of the Secretary of State's statement was about protecting vulnerable groups by preserving a viable post office network. That represents a sea change in Government thinking and is a welcome response to the poverty of imagination that has surrounded the future of that network. Given that the Secretary of State now recognises the vulnerability of many—especially the elderly—in these changed financial circumstances, is it not time to revisit the recent round of closures and allow some post offices that have been closed by the Government to make a new case?

James Purnell: It is not a sea change. What has changed is the approach taken by the hon. Gentleman's Government, which the Chairman of the Select Committee outlined. That approach led to under-investment in the network in the 1990s. Money was taken out of the network then, but this Government have invested in it to ensure that it is viable. That is why we put in £0.5 billion into the IT system, which has enabled post offices to expand their services—for example, they are now the main provider of currency services. This Government introduced the POCA, and we have now awarded the contract to the Post Office. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had welcomed that.

Lynne Jones: Sometimes it has appeared as though my right hon. Friend's Department was seeking to close down the Post Office card account for short-term gain, so I very much welcome today's announcement, especially as it will enable me to use my Post Office card account to receive my state pension in 2012. It is not just vulnerable people who use it—I do not think of myself as vulnerable, despite my position on the Back Benches. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will seek to expand the services available at post offices along the lines recommended by the watchdog, Consumer Focus, which I raised with the Prime Minister yesterday?

James Purnell: Yes, I can give an assurance that we will work to expand the range of financial and other services that are available. I know that that is something that the Post Office also wants to do.

Hywel Williams: We on my Bench welcome this decision, however much we regret disappointing our printers.  [ Laughter. ] What steps will the Government take to persuade the BBC, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and others to return their business to the Post Office?

James Purnell: The decision by the BBC was its decision, and I am glad that that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that—unlike the Liberal Democrats earlier this week. As a way of supporting the Post Office, perhaps he could mail out some different leaflets to his constituents over the next few weeks.

Linda Gilroy: Many good ideas have recently come from our constituents, and I warmly welcome the decision on behalf of the 14 post offices and all their customers in my constituency. However, it will be important to understand the exact nature of what can and cannot be done, especially when it comes to water poverty and fuel poverty, and the advice that can be given to constituents. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to meet a group of Members of Parliament to explain from his Department's point of view what can be done, so that we can rule out what cannot be done and get on with supporting the post offices in our constituencies?

James Purnell: Yes, from my Department's point of view, we will be happy to have such meetings, and I am sure that other Departments will also be happy to do so. I certainly recognise that my hon. Friend has campaigned assiduously for her 14 post offices.

James Arbuthnot: I am delighted that when the Prime Minister yesterday said "in due course", he meant tomorrow. Will the Secretary of State accept that many of us do not mind U-turns, however screeching, as long as the car ends up pointing in the right direction, but because of the uncertainty of the past many months, many post offices have faced increased difficulties? What can he do to help them by pointing new business the way of the post offices?

James Purnell: Had we not wanted to have a contract, we would not have had a process to create it and we would not now be awarding it to the Post Office, so this is the opposite of a U-turn. It is precisely because we are committed to the POCA that we decided to create the contract and now to renew it. The right hon. Gentleman is right that we should now look at how we can bring other services into post offices, and that is exactly what the task group will do. If he has any suggestions, we would be happy to look at them.

David Drew: This is welcome news in rural areas. Although it has taken a long time to come, it is entirely the right decision. Can we now look at ways in which we can advertise and encourage the use of the Post Office card account? Those of us who have a Post Office card account find it a useful way of being able to draw out money. I am sure that all postmasters and mistresses would now want to see a full-scale campaign to show that the account is the right way for many people to draw out their money.

James Purnell: As my hon. Friend will know from the debate on Monday, we have agreed to look at our literature to ensure that exactly that is done. However, advertising Post Office services is primarily a matter for the Post Office. As an account holder, my hon. Friend will be glad to know that the new Post Office card account will offer improved services and functionality, so it will be even more helpful than it was in the past.

Nigel Dodds: I warmly welcome the decision announced today by the Secretary of State and thank him for listening to many millions of people up and down the country, not least the vulnerable and elderly. Can I urge him to look speedily at the expansion of financial and other services that will be made available through the post offices and to come to this House with some real decisions as quickly as possible?

James Purnell: Yes, the hon. Gentleman can do that. That decision would be primarily for the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, but if his party has any suggestions, we would be happy to look at them.

Andrew Miller: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I refer him to his mention of the vital social service offered by post offices? There are a number of examples up and down the country of post office staff who have gone beyond the call of duty to ensure that a real social service is delivered, particularly to the elderly and infirm. Will he discuss with his hon. Friends in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform how we can develop that expertise and identify best practice so that we can expand on that incredible social service?

James Purnell: That is absolutely right. Many of our constituents look forward to their visit to the post office as a key part of their week. For example, one of my constituents, Idu Miah, who runs the post office in Mossley, is right at the heart of his community. It is important that we should develop that, and I am sure that the Post Office will want to spread the already very good practice as widely as possible around the network.

Andrew Stunell: On Monday, the Secretary of State spoke strongly in favour of a Government amendment that said that all Government Departments should give publicity to how their services could be accessed at post offices. Will he give an undertaking that what he has said today applies to other Government Departments and agencies, particularly the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which has a conflict between its internal target of getting people to use its electronic system and the need to support the Post Office?

James Purnell: Of course, people can renew their tax discs through 4,000 post offices. That approach applies to the whole Government.

Sally Keeble: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. When he looks at extending services, will he look in particular at allowing women to access child trust funds through the post office? That would mean that isolated young mothers could take their baby bond vouchers to the local post office to get their child trust fund, instead of having to go into town to a bank. It would make a big difference to social exclusion and child poverty figures.

James Purnell: My hon. Friend has been an ardent campaigner for her post offices, and we will certainly consider that suggestion. I shall respond to her about whether that can be done.

Greg Clark: Postmasters, postmistresses and customers in the remaining post offices in my constituency will be relieved at the announcement, although they are owed an apology for the months of uncertainty that they have had to endure. The Secretary of State talked about increased functionality. Will he allow people who do not have a bank account to make direct debit payments for their utility bills through the Post Office card account, thereby allowing them to access cheaper tariffs that could save them £100 a year or more on their energy bills?

James Purnell: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber during my statement, but if we had done that, this decision would not have been possible or at least would not have been so easy to take. Today's decision would have been made more difficult, rather than easier. I am not sure that he wants to argue for that. It is perfectly possible for people to have bank accounts at the post office that offer direct debits, and obviously that choice is open to them.

Clive Efford: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this contract does not start until 2010 and that those people who are accusing him of having delayed the decision need to understand the process in which we have been involved? It is imperative that Government agencies and local government direct services through the post offices if they are to be sustainable in the future. Can my right hon. Friend say whether today's announcement means that there is a moratorium on planned closures? Will any sub-post office managers who want their post offices to remain open get an opportunity to restate their case? Many communities could benefit from the future arrangements for the Post Office that my right hon. Friend envisages if those post offices remained open.

James Purnell: My hon. Friend is right that this provides the post office and sub-postmasters with certainly through to 2015 and, potentially, beyond that. That is exactly what Labour Members have been calling for. He is also right that local government has a key role to play, and we would encourage councils to make their services available through post offices. On his final point, the Post Office has said that this announcement, along with the subsidy, will allow it to preserve the network after the network change programme. Any individual decisions are clearly part of the process that has already been set out.

Brian Binley: I was proud to be on the Select Committee on Business and Enterprise, which played a major role in encouraging the Secretary of State to change his mind. I am grateful that he has done so. However, he announced greater functionality for the card. Will he explain a little more about that, on the basis that we have been pushing for greater functionality throughout this exercise?

James Purnell: As I have said, if we had listened to the Conservative party, we would not have been able to make this decision—or it would have been difficult. I am happy —[ Interruption. ] If the hon. Gentleman will listen, I will answer his question. There will be a simpler opening process for Post Office card accounts. There will also be a facility to correct mistakes, for example if too much money is taken out. The exact decisions about how that should be done are for us and the Post Office to negotiate. That is exactly what we will do, and the Post Office will take forward.

Gordon Marsden: I congratulate the Secretary of State on a decision that will be of great benefit to my sub-postmasters and to the above average number of people in the POCA-using category in Blackpool. In the interests of being more proactive about future use of the Post Office, will he ask his officials to consider the possibility of the use by the Post Office of new and innovative products that are brought forward and marketed by his Department? That should also include discussions on any ideas that come forward from the trade unions.

James Purnell: Yes, we can absolutely do that. One new area of potential business is ID services. I know that the Post Office is interested in that. At this stage, no guarantee can be given by the Government, but we know that if either of the other two parties were in government, the Post Office would not have the chance to offer those ID services, because both main Opposition parties are opposed to that policy.

Anne Main: In my constituency, we have lost five post offices, and that was opposed by all political parties, so it is not something that only the Government have a handle on. I noted with interest that in his statement the Secretary of State said that the post offices give a vital social service. That was exactly the point that was made by my constituents, but it did not cut any ice when it came to the round of cuts that we are now seeing. If the Government are going to say that it is an objective to deliver a valuable social service via the Post Office, how will they support that?

James Purnell: We are supporting it by putting £1.7 billion into the Post Office, which the hon. Lady's party never did, and through the decision that we have taken today. If she wants to be churlish, that is entirely up to her.

David Taylor: As a member of a family who for several generations ran the post office in my village of Heather in north-west Leicestershire, I welcome the announcement, although that post office was closed in February because of the reorganisation proposals. Is the Secretary of State aware that a good number of post offices in rural areas remain on the financial brink and need greater support? Will he confirm that, although a good number of older people particularly are unable to use bank and Post Office card accounts, the option to have cheque payment will continue and will be better promoted?

James Purnell: I recognise and pay tribute to the role that my hon. Friend has played in this House in relation to post offices, and to his understanding of the subject. Paying by cheque has a number of disadvantages, and is particularly open to fraud. We are considering how we can have a system that will fulfil the same goals, but in a more effective way for the customer. We are working through the process to achieve that. We will commit to delivering that outcome, although it might not be done through cheques because of the particular problems that they cause.

Richard Taylor: May I add my congratulations to the Government on actually listening to people and taking the right decision? This is good news for many people, but not so much for those who can no longer cash their card account because a branch is closing under the network change programme. Is there any chance of an appeal against specific branch closures?

James Purnell: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, there is an appeals process in the network change programme, and indeed some decisions have been overturned. However, I thank him for his kind words, and I shall be happy to write to him to set out the appeals process if he is not aware of it.

Charlotte Atkins: This is a very welcome decision, especially for rural areas such as my constituency of Staffordshire, Moorlands. I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to my constituents and to those of all hon. Members. The Post Office is a trusted brand in itself, but the people who run sub-post offices are seen as very trusted advisers to the elderly and vulnerable. My constituents tell me that they trust their sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses as sources of advice who will do everything to help them with their bills. Will he therefore look at the possibility of encouraging post offices to help with the take-up of tax credits, and especially pension credits? Will he also extend the financial products that they are able to offer, especially to vulnerable people?

James Purnell: That is a good suggestion, and I am sure that the task group will want to look at it. I shall also ask my officials to look at it, but I want to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend for the campaigning that she has done on behalf of rural areas. We have listened to the views that her constituents have expressed to her, and I am glad that she welcomes today's decision.

Shailesh Vara: The Secretary of State has said that he will not disclose the amount of money to be paid in compensation to failed bidders, but his Department will have incurred considerable expense in the tender process. There is nothing commercially confidential about his Department's expenditure, so will he tell the House how much money it has spent in the tender process? If he does not have the precise figure to hand, I shall be happy to receive an undertaking that he will write to me with it.

James Purnell: The point about expenditure is about the contract going forward, and the amount spent dwarfs any process issues. The deal is a good one for the taxpayer and for customers.

Kerry McCarthy: I too welcome this announcement very much, as will the hundreds of my constituents who have written to me about it. I chair the all-party group on credit unions, and I have just written to Lord Mandelson to see whether we can explore how credits unions can use the Post Office network to make their services more available, especially to people in remote areas. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to talk to Lord Mandelson to see how we can move those issues forward?

James Purnell: Yes, that is a very important point. The Post Office's reach is clearly wider than that of credit unions, even after their growth under this Government. My hon. Friend is right that credit unions play a vital part in providing the services and advice that help people to get out of debt and improve their financial affairs. I have seen very clearly how credit unions in my constituency have literally turned around the lives of hundreds of my constituents. My ministerial colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher), will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss exactly how what she proposes can be done.

Michael Penning: I and thousands of my constituents have written in good faith to the Secretary of State over the past few months because we have been worried about the card account and the future of local post offices, both urban and rural. Sadly, while the decision was being made, three post offices in urban and rural parts of my constituency closed, but that decision has been made and I am now worried about the future service. Will the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of the revenue streams under the new contract? Will they be different from those under the previous contract? If so, is the new contract better or worse than the old one, as that will have an effect on the marginal post offices in our constituencies?

James Purnell: Clearly, that is a matter for the Post Office, and it depends on how many card accounts are opened. I know that the hon. Gentleman cares about this issue, but the terms of the contract have to be confidential. Even so, it is important that we look at how we can get other services into post offices so that they can become viable. That is exactly what they have asked for, and it is what they are committed to achieving.

Katy Clark: I warmly welcome today's announcement, and it is clearly the right decision. My right hon. Friend will be aware of recent media speculation about the possibility of an attempt to privatise Royal Mail, which would have a negative impact on the Post Office network. Is he able to give any reassurances today that no such proposals are being considered?

James Purnell: As my hon. Friend knows, and as Lord Mandelson confirmed earlier in another place, the Hooper report, to which I think she is referring, will be published very soon.

Michael Moore: I hope that the Secretary of State will join me in paying tribute to Mervyn Jones, who is a constituent of mine—indeed, my next-door neighbour—and also president of the National Federation of SubPostmasters. He and his colleagues around the country deserve a great deal of recognition for their work in briefing Members of the House on this matter, and I welcome the decision that the right hon. Gentleman has taken.
	However, notwithstanding the Secretary of State's answers to previous questions, all the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who are grateful for today's announcement will now be worrying about how much they will get per transaction. Will he come clean about that, and put their minds at rest?

James Purnell: We have yet to award the contract to the Post Office. Clearly, we will be in discussions and negotiations about that, and that is the right way to proceed. We have made it clear that we will be awarding the contract, which will give people certainty between now and 2015, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should recognise the work that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses do. I am sure that he will join me in congratulating George Thomson on the work that he has done as general secretary of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, along with all of his members.

Gerald Kaufman: May I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to his fellow Labour Members of Parliament and for deciding to extend a service that was created by a Labour Government? We have spoken on behalf of our constituents, who include sub-postmasters, and we hope that today's decision will foreshadow greater strength and more services in our post offices. May I thank him on behalf of the 8,000 of my constituents who are Post Office card account holders—and on behalf of the 6,000 constituents in the constituency of Manchester, Withington, whose Member of Parliament is once again absent from discussion of these matters?

James Purnell: My right hon. Friend made a very good speech on this matter on Monday, and indeed pointed out that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) was not present then. It is a shame that he is not here now, but I am sure that there is a good reason for that. However, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it was this Government who created the Post Office card account, and that is why we are so strongly committed to it.

Roger Williams: I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to supporting POCA in the future, but one criticism of the scheme is that it is very difficult to open an account. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a commitment that in future the POCA will be the easiest option rather than the last resort? If he can, there may be substance to his announcement today.

James Purnell: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to make opening an account as easy as possible. It is already easier than opening a bank account, but the new contract will make it even easier. Both the Post Office and the Government are committed to that, and will work together on it over the next few weeks and months.

Alan Reid: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and his commitment to ensuring that it will be easier to open an account, but I hope that we will not have a repeat of what happened in 2003 with the complicated migration process. Will pensioners who have an account at present keep it automatically without having to go through a migration process? Also, will the right hon. Gentleman make a commitment that he will write to those pensioners who applied for an account in recent months but who were refused and told that, unless they supplied their bank account details, they would not get their pension? Will he write to them and offer them the opportunity to open a POCA?

James Purnell: We did not write to pensioners saying what the hon. Gentleman claims, and we have not asked any POCA holders for bank account details. One isolated letter was sent out by mistake, and we have apologised for that. However, I can give a commitment that we will ensure that people do not have to change their accounts. One of the virtues of this decision is that people already know how to use their POCA and are used to going to their post offices to do so. That is one of the reasons why we have taken this decision.

Malcolm Bruce: This is clearly the right decision, although I suspect that Lord Mandelson has cast a long shadow over it—assuming that he casts a shadow. Is it not time to end the attrition against the Post Office network and to start building it up with new services? May I suggest that the Government start by using their impending shareholding in the Royal Bank of Scotland to instruct that bank to use the Post Office network and to allow its customers to do so as well?

James Purnell: The right hon. Gentleman made the same claim earlier this week, but actually the RBS already offers that through its accounts.  [Interruption.] It does; I will happily write to him about it. One is a basic account, and the other is a current account. I am afraid that he was not in the Chamber when I wanted to make that point earlier this week. I am happy to be able to give him that information.

Philip Hollobone: This is the right decision, and the hundreds of residents in the Kettering constituency who sent in their campaign postcards will have played their part in changing the Secretary of State's mind. Will he ensure that all the social security benefit and pension application forms that his Department issues highlight the Post Office card account as an attractive means of payment of those benefits, instead of mentioning it in the small print at the bottom of the page?

James Purnell: As I said earlier, we are looking at how we market the POCA. It is an important service, which is why we are renewing it. We have made exactly the change that the hon. Gentleman suggests in, for example, the leaflet that goes with our letters about cheque accounts. I hope that he will welcome that.

Steve Webb: Will the Secretary of State clarify something about his statement? He said: "On the basis of the legal advice that we received at the time"—that is, in 2006—"we put the contract out to tender." He has now decided that he can cancel the tendering process. Either the advice that he received was wrong, or the legal position has changed. Will he clarify which it is?

James Purnell: If I may dare to paraphrase Keynes, when the facts change, the legal advice becomes different. The facts have changed, as I explained in my statement. There has been a major change in people's attitudes to financial services. There has been a significant increase in people's concern about them. Given the vital social and financial importance of the Post Office, the legal advice is that we are taking the appropriate, legal way of proceeding. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the decision that we are taking.

Andrew Pelling: Croydon residents will welcome this news. I am sorry to be churlish on a good news day, but they wait a very long time in queues that spill out of the very large post office in the centre of Croydon into High street, as so many post office branches have been closed. Bearing in mind that we are now taking a new, fresh, radical approach, would it be possible to spend just a fraction of the money spent on bailing out UK banks on post offices? As we have crossed the Rubicon and made a public sector investment in banking, surely this is the time to invest in post office branches, and to have a fresh, new bank, free of bad debts, and therefore better able to stimulate growth in our economy?

James Purnell: The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that part of the £1.7 billion that we will spend will be invested in the network and the post offices that are there to deliver services to his constituents and others. We have already said that we want to look at the other financial services that are provided, and indeed at other services that the Post Office could provide. He will be glad to know that access to 60 per cent. of bank accounts is available through the Post Office.

Philip Dunne: It beggars belief that the Secretary of State can claim that his change of heart it is down to the credit crunch. All the so-called facts that have changed, which he identified in his statement, were known at the outset of the prolonged tendering process. So why did he put all sub-postmasters through the tortuous process, causing them concern about the viability of their business, and all their customers concern about whether they should continue to use the Post Office?

James Purnell: I will tell the hon. Gentleman where the contrast is: it is between the benefit card account that we had to cancel because it did not work, and because it was overrunning and over-budget, and the Post Office card account, which has been a great success, and which we are renewing.

Point of Order

Michael Penning: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and his team are in the Chamber, may I ask whether you are aware that there was to be an oral statement this morning on the Buncefield situation? I understand that the Government will make a written statement today on the Government's response to the terrible disaster that took place in my constituency three years ago. Even though I have had an opportunity to speak to the Minister in the other place, Lord McKenzie, neither I nor any other Member of this House will have an opportunity to question the Minister or his team on the Government's response to the Buncefield inquiry. I wonder how we can get that issue discussed on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are many ways in which the hon. Gentleman might explore his concerns on the issue, but obviously it has nothing to do with the statement with which we have just dealt.

TOPICAL DEBATE

Combating Obesity

Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of combating obesity.
	It was almost a year ago today that the Foresight programme report served notice of the grave threat posed to health by obesity. That group of eminent scientists claimed that modern society had created an obesogenic environment, which, without radical action, would result in nine in 10 adults and two thirds of all children being overweight or obese by 2050. The prognosis is truly frightening. Within a generation, three in five cases of type 2 diabetes and a fifth of all heart disease cases will be caused by obesity, and for the first time in centuries we face the terrible spectre of some children living shorter lives than their parents unless we reverse current trends.
	Yet the prescription, on paper at least, is simple: we all need to eat a little less and exercise a little more; we will then, hopefully, live a little longer. In practice, though, the challenge is rather more difficult. People live hectic lives. Time is at a premium, and so often, exercise or healthy food can be edged out by family commitments, work, a lack of good leisure facilities or a lack of shops that sell fresh food in the area. Fundamentally, making the big lifestyle changes is a question of access, opportunity and will. Those are the issues that we must address emphatically if we want to turn the tide on obesity. The Government have already taken important steps: for example, we have allocated £65 million to NHS primary care trusts to help them to identify, monitor and support obese patients. We have updated the child health promotion programme and expanded the new family nurse partnership programme. In partnership with the children's plan introduced by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, that will help to support the health and well-being of children and young people.
	Working with Ofcom, we have placed new restrictions on the broadcast advertising of unhealthy foods to children, and are continuing to work with industry on the healthy food code to reduce salt and fat content in manufactured foods. But—and it is a big but—changing behaviour is not something that we can do from the Department of Health, Whitehall or this House. We need a lifestyle revolution driven not from above but from below, and embracing all aspects of a person's life. That means that everyone—schools, councils, local businesses, charities and community groups—must play a role in helping people to make space for the little things that can make a big difference.

Philip Hollobone: The right hon. Lady is making an extremely good point about lifestyle choices and the link with being unhealthy. Does she agree that it is time for the Government and other bodies to once again encourage family meal times, as opposed to the increasing snack culture in which so many young people and adults participate? That is contributing to an unhealthy lifestyle.

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I know that he follows the issue closely. In debate, we have to consider how we engender changes in lifestyle, because we cannot force families or individuals to make those changes. We must consider what sort of partnerships we need to create and sustain to deliver that. I want to go on to give some examples, because he makes an important point. As I am sure he will agree, those changes include taking part in important campaigns such as the "5 a day" campaign, kicking a ball around with the children, ditching the car on the school run, and sharing family meal times, as he said.

David Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend turn, at some point, to the influence of commercialisation on food choices? Testing shows that even very young children are influenced by brands. Although young children know what is good for them, they are more likely to be influenced by familiarity, taste, and the visibility of the product in the environment in which they live than by other considerations. How can we reasonably tackle that while remaining relatively liberal, in terms of advertising?

Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's instruction, and I shall come on to give an example of the way in which the Government's leadership role, by providing the framework for action and creating the opportunities and infrastructures for healthy living in our communities, can address those problems. When I do so, and if he does not think that I have answered his question, I shall be happy to give way again.

Shailesh Vara: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I should like to make progress.

Shailesh Vara: The Minister is indeed generous, and is making some powerful points. She spoke about the need to encourage a change in lifestyle, but does she accept that we must ensure that when young people leave school they know how to cook? One of the greatest failings at the moment stems from the fact that people buy pre-cooked food because they do not know how to cook. Changing that would not only be cheaper but healthier.

Dawn Primarolo: I certainly agree, and each intervention has touched on the fact that there is not one, simple solution to the problem; it is about what we eat, where we eat, how the food is prepared, what our knowledge is, opportunities to exercise, the way we arrange our lives, and about making choices. The role of government is to create partnerships, offer choices, and provide information, then support individuals as they seek to make those choices. That is our strategy, and it means anything from improving parks to building more cycle routes; cookery classes in school; encouraging children to do more sport; and working with employers and retailers to make it easier and more practical for people to take more exercise and eat more healthily. What the Government are being told is that people understand what the choices are and want the opportunity to act on what they know, and that is what we have to provide.
	As we step back from the foresight report, we must give due prominence to local ideas and local actions—families, individuals and communities taking action. Ultimately, that means we must make sure that what is happening on the ground—in the family, in the parks and in shopping centres—contributes to a healthy lifestyle.

Kerry McCarthy: I thank my right hon. Friend for her generosity in giving way. She will be aware of initiatives in Bristol such as the "Thank you for not driving" campaign, which aims to tackle the school run, and the healthy schools initiative. The other day, I presented an award to St Anne's infants school, which has received a healthy schools certificate. Does she agree that children have a role to play as ambassadors to try to encourage their parents to adopt a healthier lifestyle?

Dawn Primarolo: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. As a constituency neighbour of hers, I know that Bristol is a cycling city: it is undertaking the "active Bristol" programme and considering how it can improve its parks, provide family-centred facilities and safe corridors for family activities, so that children can undertake that exercise. It is a small step, if the House will forgive the pun, and it also enables children to set an example to their parents.
	Of course it is about money, and the Government have invested in such programmes, but it is also about creating a movement. At the centre of what we are doing is the Change4Life movement, which is a huge coalition for better health that brings together many different initiatives under one banner. Returning to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) made, before I received notice of this debate I was supposed to be in Newcastle for the first Change4Life partnership with local convenience stores, which will help to break a simple barrier to good health: the fact, that in some parts of the country, local shops simply do not stock fresh fruit and veg. The project is about making that easier, by supporting retailers and working with them. The first step is the launch of 12 development stores, which will be provided with funding, so that they can offer such opportunities. By May next year, it is hoped that there will be 120 such stores across the north-east. Assuming that the scheme is successful, it will be rolled out across the country. We have every reason to believe that it will be successful, because similar projects have worked in Scotland.
	This is not just one issue—we have to look at wider considerations and say which organisations and agencies must come together to develop and support a wide range of initiatives at community level. What is happening in the north-east is mirrored across England. The coalition is impressive, and 12,000 grassroots organisations are involved in Change4Life, working with leading charities and big high-street names such as Asda, Tesco, Kellogg's and PepsiCo. It is about breakfast clubs, sponsoring sport and making sure that people can make those changes to their lifestyle. Fittingly, a year on from the foresight report, this week we have announced the nine areas chosen to become "healthy towns", receiving a share of £30 million to pioneer approaches that will enhance choices for their local communities and their ability to live a healthy life. Manchester has seen the launch of the Points4Life loyalty card, which rewards people with free activities or healthy food when they visit the gym or take exercise. Tower Hamlets is running a scheme to persuade shops and restaurants on the main road to the Olympic park to push healthier options. In Tewkesbury, people are developing an urban garden programme which will help residents to keep fit, rebuild green space in the wake of last year's floods, and make sure that they have access to such opportunities.
	We must celebrate and encourage that diversity of approach, because obesity is not confined to one social group or area, and we know it is exacerbated by poverty. That also means getting the message across that Change4Life is for everyone: children, busy parents, health professionals, and even hon. Members and, dare I say, Ministers of State. We all need to get involved because we can all benefit. In challenging economic times, when family budgets are under pressure, we must spell out the message that healthy eating does not have to be expensive. In fact, as the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) said, healthy home-cooked food is often considerably cheaper than a takeaway burger or pizza.
	This is not about interfering in people's lives, or about creating a nanny state, but we are not prepared to neglect the issues that face us, or hide behind vague notions of nudging people to better health. Quite simply, the cost of inaction and neglect is too great. It is the human cost of 9,000 premature deaths a year because of obesity. It is the increasing economic damage from the causes of rising chronic disease, and it is the cost to our society, rising to £50 billion a year within two generations, if we do not tackle the problem. In the face of those dangers, we need concrete action, not platitudes. Our obesity strategy is a comprehensive, proactive agenda for change, delivered for communities, by local communities, in local communities. I am confident that that will help our nation to shed the pounds, and give us all the chance to lead healthier and more enjoyable lives.

John Pugh: I am heartened by the Minister's speech and her conclusions, not least because they were similar to those I arrived at, possibly with more detail attached to them.
	The problem is known—we have increased levels of obesity; more overweight children; higher risks of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, infertility and early death—and, a bit like the credit crunch, it is worldwide. Most industrial nations, although they vary a little, depending on climate, demography and the national diet, suffer from that problem, and it appears to be concentrated among the urban poor.
	The causes are almost universally understood, too, but they are numerous: the mechanisation of labour in the home and in the workplace, which is good and irreversible but has consequences; the availability of cheap, personal transport door-to-door, whether it is to school—the infamous school run—or to work; and the attractions—we should not deny them—of sedentary pursuits, because the computer offers a lot, the TV always did, and the TV with the remote control takes away the necessity of even getting up to change the channel.
	We have already mentioned the industrialisation of food production: the ready, microwaveable meal, fast-food production and the decline in home cooking and home food production, which is coupled with the inevitable but contrary rise in the purchase of cook books—regularly bought but invariably not used very much. Further to that, there is the habit, as alluded to in one intervention, of people not eating as families but engaging in activities known as foraging and snacking.
	Then there is physical activity and the end of playing out, which used to be such a simple thing. Children would play out in the street in which they lived or in the neighbouring street, but in many cases that is now seen by neighbours as a social nuisance or a threat, and by parents as a personal hazard or social danger, so it does not happen a great deal. If we add to that the reduction in school sports, as extra-curricular activity is squeezed by the need to get good results, we have an increasingly inactive youth population.
	Even things as praiseworthy as the Disability Discrimination Acts, which are intended to serve the needs of the disabled, have led to a plethora of lifts, so that able-bodied and overweight people need to go neither up nor down stairs. I am slightly amazed and appalled—the puritan in me is coming out—when I see people in this place who are clearly overweight but take a lift to go one floor down. I feel like commenting, but I restrain myself, and perhaps it is just as well. It does happen, however. We can add to that another social problem, which is the increase in social drinking, because drink, believe it or not, contains calories, and it gives society a huge additional headache.
	Some individuals—we do notice them—counteract those factors by efforts of will: they jog in their lunchtime, although jogging along the banks of the River Thames has almost become in itself a social nuisance; and some go to gyms in the evening. But I do not think that anybody can be anything other than fatalistic about relying on heroic acts of individual will, and if we considered more mundane things such as the slimming industry and its value for money, we would arrive at some pretty grim conclusions.
	Science offers some, albeit limited, hope. We will understand more about metabolic rates and the tendency of some people to put on weight and others to do so to a lesser extent, and we will get better at identifying risks and diagnosing the physiological and psychological factors in eating and overeating. However, at the end of the day, as the Minister suggested, the cultural changes are sizeable and we might genuinely question whether any Government have the tools to address them because, as we all know, the fundamental problem is that too much of the wrong food is eaten and too little physical activity is undertaken.
	My analysis is that the population once stayed fit through what I call inertial factors, that it got fat through inertial factors—it was not a question of people deliberately deciding to behave differently—and that we can only really solve the problem through inertial factors. We can solve it only by creating a climate in which people stay thin—a non-obesogenic environment.
	I welcome many of the initiatives, such as better nutritional advice for families, which, surely, has its place. We would be mistaken if we thought people naturally acquired that advice through osmosis; it needs to be taught, and sometimes taught in schools. I also welcome the educational programmes and the recent more long-term thinking about school dinners and the disastrous effect—I observed this in the past as a teacher—that unguided choice in developing dietary preferences has had. I have seen children walk past salad bars and all sorts of healthy eating options only to go for the pizza and the chips, and the next day do exactly the same—and the day after that as well. However, I worry that if we concentrate too much on children's eating habits and mishandle the issue, we may aggravate eating disorders among children and adolescents, and we want to do nothing of the sort.
	I welcome, too, food labelling and simple—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I feel that the hon. Gentleman has had his allotted time.

John Pugh: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I was not sure whether we changed the Standing Order yesterday. I was not sure whether it had come into operation. May I just conclude by—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, no. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to resume his seat—sadly.

Alistair Burt: This is an interesting debate that contrasts several modern dilemmas. First, we must recognise that we in this country have the luxury of debating obesity. Most of us have the opportunity to travel around the world, and we go to many places where obesity is not an issue at all, so we should always remind ourselves that in the western, developed world, the subject of the debate might be termed a luxury.

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is looking at the whole question of obesity, but by way of information, India, for instance, has the two extremes in one nation: obesity and those who do not have enough. Regrettably, obesity is not just a European or north American challenge.

Alistair Burt: I take the Minister's point, but India is a developing society and it counts itself as one. If we went to parts of Africa, we would not find that the issue was handled in the same way. I take the Minister's point that obesity affects all nations that have reached a certain status, but, for us, it is a slight luxury to be dealt with.
	We have the dilemma of being an information-based society—there is no shortage of information about health, diet and everything else—that takes no notice. It is not a class issue, but the problems are concentrated among the poorest. We have another dilemma whereby the Government do not want to lecture, or to finger-wag, as the Secretary of State said when he launched "Change4Life", but they have to pick up the very substantial bill for a nation that neglects the issue of obesity. The debate is interesting because, as several contributors have said, there is a limit to what we can do about it. However, talking about the issue and raising it is what we do, and it is very important.
	I shall concentrate on four points. First, I shall return to the international situation. More than 923 million—perhaps 1 billion—people in the world are hungry. Every day 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes, and every year more than 20 million low-birth-weight babies are born in developing countries, where they risk dying in infancy or growing up with various diseases. If food was left on the side of the plate in Victorian times, the mother or father would pronounce to the child the maxim, "This is needed in some other part of the world. If you were living somewhere else, they would want it." Well, we cannot all do that, and it does not quite translate in the same way, but it should be an issue in this country, and people should be reminded that, when compared with other places, the luxury of food in this country means that perhaps the imperative that we take what we want, but eat what we take, actually matters. There is no harm in introducing that point to the debate.
	Secondly, on the Government's role in the provision of information, there is no shortage of information about what obesity means and what we might be able to do about it. Obesity is a contributory risk factor in many chronic diseases: heart disease, stroke, some cancers, type 2 diabetes and so many other things. Obesity and lack of physical activity are risk factors in several major cancers, and, in addition, obese people are more likely to suffer from a number of psychological problems, such as low self-image, lack of confidence, social stigma, reduced mobility and an overall poorer quality of life. Despite all those documented risks, the prevalence of obesity in England more than trebled between 1980 and 2002, which is an extraordinary increase in such a short time. It went from 6 per cent. to 22 per cent. in men, and from 8 per cent. to 23 per cent. in women. The increased prevalence can also be seen in children aged two to 10. Between 1995 and 2003, levels of obesity among children rose from 9.9 per cent. to 13.7 per cent., and the combined overweight and obese levels rose from 22.7 per cent. to 27.7 per cent.
	In my area of Bedfordshire, it is estimated that approximately one quarter of the adult population—some 83,000 people—are obese. An additional 40 per cent. of men and 30 per cent. of women there are overweight; perhaps 128,000 people there are at an increased health risk. If trends continue, by 2010 94,000 adults in Bedfordshire will be obese. That is an extraordinary number. The sheer number of obese and overweight people from my area would fill Wembley stadium to bursting point. The national costs of obesity are huge. The Health Committee has estimated them at between £3.5 billion and £4 billion a year; if the overweight are included, the figure rises to between £6.6 billion and £7.4 billion a year. Between 1998 and 2004, there was a seventeenfold increase in the drugs used to treat obesity.
	We know the figures, but the lack of interest is remarkable. The Library put together an excellent debate pack. I was struck by Department of Health survey statistics that revealed that just 11.5 per cent. of those with children who are overweight or obese recognise the fact. Only 38 per cent. of adults know that obesity could lead to heart disease, and only 6 per cent. of adults recognise the links between cancer and being obese or overweight.
	I suspect that there is a frustration on both sides of the House that so little is done about the information, despite all our efforts and the fact that it is well known. I praise the efforts of the local authorities in Bedfordshire and the primary care trust in setting the appropriate targets and in aiming for weight reduction, particularly among children. By 2020, their target is to reduce the proportion of obese and overweight children to the levels of the year 2000. They recognise that, sadly, there is only so much to be done with adults, but that as much as possible must be done with children.
	There is a limit to the responsibility of the Government and local government. The provision of information is one aspect of their responsibility and the promotion of active and healthy lifestyles is another. The completion of various cycle ways has made a lot of difference in Bedfordshire. Furthermore, we have schools that are devoted to fitness and healthy food and GPs have joined in the PCT's targets.
	I should like to refer to two or three particular things that might make a difference. First, we should emphasise fitness rather than only attacking weight. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) was coming to this point, before his remarks concluded; I sense the direction in which he was going, and perhaps I complete the point that he was going to make. Sadly, due to the nation's obsession with celebrity and how people look, attacking weight is leading to its own problems, as youngsters get caught up with eating disorders and the like. I was struck by a couple of comments in the Library briefing. At a recent British Dietetic Association conference, Claire Mellors, a dietician, said that:
	"a real fear of obesity is an emerging and worrying trend...From my clinical experience I would say that as healthy living messages have become more prevalent, there has been a corresponding rise in referrals for children with disordered eating".
	Andrew Hill, a medical psychologist at the university of Leeds, has said:
	"It is vital that children develop an understanding of why exercise is important. There are risks of inactivity that they do need to know about. But why does it always have to be hung on a peg of obesity? They should grow up enjoying activity, not doing it because it makes them thin."
	We have to be careful in balancing the messages and making sure that they get out.
	Secondly, we have to be prepared to speak out firmly. I noted the point made by the Secretary of State in introducing Change4Life—that it was not about finger wagging and lecturing. However, on some occasions we are entitled to do that. We are all picking up the bill for obesity, and in some cases people can do something about their condition themselves. We must not move completely away from a sense that the issue is about personal responsibility, as well as about providing opportunities for food, exercise, dieting and everything else. If we continue to produce excuses for everybody and say that it is not their fault, but all a cultural thing, we will not get to the necessary stage at which people accept their personal responsibility and do something about it.
	When Jamie Oliver came to give evidence to the House, he was more direct. He said that the issue was not about class or poverty because people had material goods coming out of their ears. The problem was that people had forgotten how to cook and could no longer be bothered to cook. He was very direct and critical, and said things that politicians should say equally clearly. I tell the Minister that she is entitled to wag her finger and tell people that they could do better.

John Pugh: I totally accept the hon. Gentleman's point about individual responsibility, but commercial responsibility is also involved. Many of the food companies that are keen on labelling have retail outlets in which the only things people wanting a bag of crisps or bar of chocolate can buy are a grab bag or a very large bar. The companies know that; it is a sales strategy.

Alistair Burt: That is a fair point. Looking at the commercial practices of companies can lead to difficult issues. On the one hand, they sell goods that people like and enjoy and, in small measure, are good for us—"A little of what you fancy does you good," "Moderation in all things," and so on. Yet when such things are taken to extremes, they cause the very problems that we are speaking about. In addition to the commercial responsibility, there is also the responsibility of individuals, not only when they buy for themselves, but when they buy for others. I want to encourage the Minister: occasionally, a bit of finger wagging may not be a bad thing.
	The encouragement of cookery at school level is important, as the Minister knows because I have told her in the House about the kids' cookery school that I have visited. It tries to provide opportunities for youngsters, particularly in poorer areas, to learn more about practical, basic cooking, which can make such a difference to diet and budget. I encourage her to do more on that issue.
	My last point about finger wagging and lecturing relates to the fashion industry. As a bloke, I am not attracted to size-zero women. The determination to drive women to a particular size because of the notion that that will somehow make them more attractive to blokes and the world at large is misplaced. We love women of all different shapes and sizes. We love them not because of how they look or are dressed, but because of who they are—their spirit, style, humour and everything about them. We do not need an industry to force women into a box. The fashion fascistas should be lectured on every possible occasion by those who say, "Don't do it for us, because we're not interested."
	Finally, I turn to the issue of sport and fitness. I belong to Biggleswade athletic club and I commend all those who work and provide coaching in youth and sporting organisations. I am also president of the sea cadets in Biggleswade and I know that all youth organisations do so much to encourage physical activity, not only for its own sake but for a sense of the fitness and discipline that go with it. As new houses make the populations of areas such as mine larger, having in place a decent leisure strategy for the growing numbers of people becomes essential. They will need to use facilities that are often undervalued and overrun.
	I pay particular tribute to Phil Dean, who died last week. He was the motivator behind the recent success of the Biggleswade swimming club and a remarkable man whose very nature, spirit and style said much about the area he came from and his personal determination to see youngsters have the chance to be fit and have opportunities for swimming and fitness in my area. He was a giant of a bloke and will be sadly missed by his family and all those who knew him. However, there are many Phil Deans who work hard as youth coaches and motivators, and we need to encourage them all. We need to help volunteering, including in sport, and encourage our youngsters to be fit, rather than just to lose weight. In that way, we will make some progress towards the goals that the Government and all in the House have rightly set.

David Amess: I listened carefully to the Minister of State, and I suppose that there was very little that I, or indeed anyone in the House, could disagree with. However, I am disappointed by the degree of seriousness that the Government attach to the subject.
	Those of us who become Members of Parliament do not, presumably, come here just to time-serve but to try to achieve something. For instance, when I was proud to pilot through the House the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, which tasked the Government with eliminating fuel poverty, I thought: "Fantastic! Everyone is going to be warm in their homes and fuel poverty will be eliminated." I then found out—although there has been no publicity for this—that the Government took the definition of "eradicate" in the Act to a court of law, where its terms have been overturned despite our discussions and arguments in Committee.
	Throughout my time as a member of the Select Committee on Health, the finest report that we produced followed our inquiry into obesity. Of course, I would say that, because it was my idea to have the inquiry. We worked as a team under our excellent then-Chairman, David Hinchliffe, together with the current Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who was then a member of the Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who was one of the leading lights in our inquiries. The reality is that the Health Committee triggered the national and international debate on obesity.
	I say that I am disappointed with the Government's response so far because, as a Conservative, I am not into gesture politics. I said to my colleagues at the time that, as a nation, we need to be serious about obesity. Perhaps we are not serious and we want to fatten everyone up—if so, we are succeeding. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said, the excellent briefing from the Library shows that of the OECD countries, Britain is second to America in the extent of obesity, and rapidly catching up. It is costing this nation £3.7 billion a year to treat people with ailments caused by obesity.
	Following its superb inquiry, the Health Committee produced a report, and I want the Minister to tell the House precisely how many of its recommendations the Government have implemented. When I participated in our questioning of the then Minister for Public Health, Melanie Johnson, her responses suggested that the Government were not going to do anything terribly tangible. I said:
	"I am thinking about advertising, labelling calories on bottles of alcohol."
	Yes, there are calories in alcohol; I saw the Minister nodding when that was mentioned earlier. I went on:
	"Is the Government really saying that it is an individual's responsibility and no to legislation?"
	Miss Johnson replied:
	"We are not saying either of those things. What we are saying is that there needs to be a balance".
	Later, I said to her:
	"You have told the Chairman that obesity is at the top of the agenda in terms of public health."
	So where do we stand now? The Government have recently made two announcements, which, as ever, caught the headlines. The first concerned tackling childhood obesity. We had a great opportunity to do that when our report was published four years ago. Much as I applaud the fact that the four supermarkets are going to work together to tackle childhood obesity, I want to hear a little more from the Minister to convince me that this is not gesture politics and that there will be a sustained follow-up to that announcement. Then we had the healthy towns initiative. Will the Minister explain how those towns were chosen? Were they invited to bid? Do I need to tell off my own town of Southend for failing to put in a bid? It is a great idea, but are these pilot schemes, and how will the Minister decide whether they have been a success?
	We drew a number of conclusions in our report, saying finally:
	"While we have tried wherever possible to take the food industry at its word, and seen it as 'part of the solution', we recommend that the Government reviews the situation in three years"—
	it was published in 2004, so we were recommending that it be reviewed last year—
	"and then decides if more direct regulation is required."
	On one of the Committee's trips, we went to America, where we met people from all the big names in the food and drink industry. McDonald's, Nestlé, Coca Cola—you name it, we met them. To a woman and to a man, they were in total denial that the responsibility was theirs. All they wanted to emphasise was physical activity. I do not want any of my colleagues to boo from a sedentary position, but I am an unashamed enthusiast for the Olympic games. The Minister for the Olympics is reported to have said at a dinner earlier this week that if we had known then what we know now, perhaps we would not have bid for them, but I am delighted that we are going to have them, because there will be a sustained focus on physical activity. We debated the legacy a couple of weeks ago. I hope that the physical activity will not end with the closing ceremony and that people will continue to run, jump, swim, dance and all the rest of it. That is splendid.
	We do not die if we do not take physical exercise, but we do if we do not drink and eat. The nature of the human beast is that we are all sinners. We all like to drink and we all like food. We like our taste buds to be triggered in some way or other. The key is to get the food and drink industry to take seriously the fat, salt and sugar content of the things that we eat and drink. In trying to get the supermarkets to agree on what we recommended in terms of traffic light labelling, we have ended with a shambles. It is no good having two systems—we are all very busy, and when we go round the supermarket the additives have to be clearly identified. I go back to what I said to Melanie Johnson during the inquiry.
	We now have a Labour Government who say that they do not want to have a nanny state nor do they want to tell people what to do. However, a general review has not worked—I am not even convinced that that is happening—and having targets has not worked. We need action and leadership from the Government. I want them to assure me that obesity is at the top of their health agenda, because I am not convinced that it is. There are no quick fixes, but what we have are all the gestures that the Government participate in, seemingly every six months or in a year.
	When the Select Committee visited a town in Europe, however, we saw a fantastic project—no motor vehicles were allowed in the town, and everyone was riding a bike. I suppose that it was a little bit like Cambridge. Since the publication of our report, I see no evidence that the Government have set any sustained target for wider involvement of the public. We had the BBC's "Fat Nation" for a while, but we seem to be going in and out of the process of involvement.
	I applaud the latest two initiatives, but I want tangible leadership from the Government. If they had accepted every one of the Health Committee's recommendations, the Minister of State would be able to stand at the Dispatch Box and say, "We are actually treating this problem seriously and we are determined to defeat obesity."

Andrew Pelling: It is important to give every opportunity to people to take responsibility for their own health, but we must also be cognisant of the important issue of stigma. It is very much the Government's approach to ensure that no stigma is applied to the obese in initiatives to combat obesity. It is important that we recognise that many people suffer from obesity for reasons of genetics or metabolism rather than greed. It is not acceptable for us to take the approach of bullying the school fatty, or for society to hold a view that implies that obesity means slowness of gait, or of wit or mind. Recently, I was the subject of criticism by the Sri Lankan Government because I took an interest in the peace process in that benighted isle. They made many criticisms of me, but one—that I was fat—may well have some truth. That is a sign that accusations concerning size are a matter of stigma, attack and derision.
	More seriously, I would like to speak from personal experience about the important dovetailing of the issues of obesity and mental ill health. I went through a period of mental ill health that coincided with significant changes in weight between 72 kg and 104 kg, which is a range of 44 per cent. I had an illness, followed by purposeful use of antidepressants to improve on my lowered weight, but we must recognise that antidepressants have an unintended effect on the weight of many of those taking them, which can have a significant effect on their willingness to continue to take them. One of the most significant reasons for non-compliance in the taking of important antidepressants is unintended weight loss.
	The Government have been supportive in their provision of additional resources for mental ill health, and in my locality, we benefit greatly from the South London and Maudsley trust, which is an excellent, world-beating provider in the area of mental health. Nevertheless, there is a lack of sufficient resources to provide the counselling, advice and therapy for those with mental ill health, and for those who might need such support in the context of deciding not to continue with their medication because of concerns about the side effects of antidepressant use.
	I would like to mention briefly the way in which combating obesity links to diabetes. My local primary care trust in Croydon has undertaken important initiatives in that area, but I still believe that additional steps could be taken to identify a number of different causes and symptoms of diabetes. It is a particular curse for the large south Asian community in my constituency, and it is most appropriate that we are debating this issue just ahead of world diabetes day.
	Another important link between this subject and ill health is eating disorders, which have already been referred to by other Members. They particularly affect young ladies, who can be oppressed by social and peer pressures. I was impressed by the work done by the Greater London authority. Dee Doocey, who is a Liberal Democrat Member of the London Assembly, and Boris Johnson have considered the matter, and asked whether funding should continue for London fashion week when there is such an obsession with size-zero models. Such models put pressure on many young girls and young ladies to believe that they are fat or obese when that can hardly be the case. It is fair to say that I have some doubts about my ability to be a judge in the "Miss Croydon Advertiser" contest that will be taking place this evening at House of Fraser in Croydon, but the good news about that contest is that it is about the style, poise, intelligence and attitude of real people. I know who the finalists are, and they are between sizes eight and 12. It is good to see that people recognise that there is beauty to be found in young people of all sizes, and in all of us.
	I would like to touch briefly on the comments made by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) about the important role of food companies, particularly as there is a great temptation in times of great economic stringency for people to buy cheaply, but wrongly—to buy food that might not be nourishing, but which is more likely to add to their obesity. Despite the rather ill-judged reputation that one company in Croydon has, I am pleased to say that Nestlé UK takes a responsible attitude by ensuring that it sells good food to its customers. It is a very good Croydon company.
	We often make fun of ourselves and the Government by mocking the cross-cutting approach taken across Departments to deal with important social issues. It is ambitious of the Government to pursue proper co-ordination among Departments and between different public sector bodies. It is therefore important to see how the annual report will bear out matters next year in its measurement of providing the most effective co-ordination between Departments, and the extent to which it has been possible to inculcate an absorption policy in local authorities and local schools.
	A number of Members have mentioned the importance of sports. An area of cross-cutting governmental co-ordination I find of interest is the extent to which the Building Schools for the Future programme has taken cognisance of the danger of trying to secure capital receipts and therefore compromising the provision of school playing fields. I am a former chairman of education, and it is fair to say that I have sold playing fields myself, so I plead guilty to that, but I hope that the Government are resisting that temptation.
	It is also important to have joined-up government in the areas of social services and sports provision. I would like to highlight the good practice, which I am sure is being pursued elsewhere, that was taken up as an initiative by Croydon council before the Government took a more national approach. The council saw that there were significant savings to be made in social services care for senior citizens by providing free swimming. Free swimming, at little extra cost, means that many of our senior citizens enjoy a better quality of life, through more active minds and bodies. I congratulate Councillor Steve Hollands on Croydon council on making that policy judgment.
	It will be interesting to note in next year's annual report the extent to which there has been an early trend towards a fall in obesity levels. Perhaps we can also hope for some early savings and a reduction on pressures on the NHS budget as the result of Government initiatives.

Howard Stoate: Not only the scale of the problem—the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) set out the statistics well—but the speed and trajectory at which it is becoming a major disaster for Britain and the wider world are shocking. My friend Dr. David Haslam of the National Obesity Forum spoke of a time bomb; he said that there is no obesity time bomb because it has already exploded and that we are now suffering its aftermath. We are dealing with the effects of a disaster.
	We have already heard about the effects of obesity, including the huge increase in diabetes. An obese person has approximately 30 times the risk of diabetes compared with somebody of normal weight. As we all know, diabetes can significantly shorten life; it causes heart disease, strokes and vascular problems, not to mention the damage to eyes, nerves and kidneys. It is a multi-system disorder, which can cause significant problems. Type 2 diabetes is almost exclusively related to obesity. It is unusual to find somebody who is not obese with type 2 diabetes—the link is that great.
	We have also heard about the link between obesity and cancer. Several cancers are directly related to obesity, as are heart disease and degenerative diseases such as arthritis. Obesity shortens life and causes misery. It has been estimated that obesity can knock nine years off life. I do not exaggerate when I say that, if the trend continues, a generation of young people will pre-decease their parents. That would be the first time in the civilised world that a generation had pre-deceased its parents through non-war-related effects. The position is that serious.
	We have heard about the reasons for the increase in obesity. We eat far more refined food, which, almost by definition, is more calorie-dense than non-refined food. For example, a bag of crisps has a far higher calorie density than a pile of mashed potato. People experience more problems because they eat more processed food.
	One of the big debates about obesity is whether calorie intake, lack of exercise or a combination of both causes it. The obvious answer is that it is a combination of both. However, a misleading statement that we often hear from several quarters is that people are not eating more than they did. People say that because they completely ignore food that is eaten outside the home.

Michael Penning: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must examine calories and exercise, but we must also consider salt and fat, which do not necessarily fall into calorie content, but are just as dangerous and cause obesity.

Howard Stoate: The hon. Gentleman is right about fat. Salt in itself does not cause obesity—it can cause other problems, such as high blood pressure, and it has a significantly damaging effect on health. Fat is the main problem because it is the most calorie-dense food. It has approximately nine calories per gram, whereas carbohydrate and protein have approximately four to five calories per gram. Fat is, therefore, almost twice as calorie-dense as carbohydrate and protein. Anything people can do to switch from fat to carbohydrate will reduce their calorie intake. It is difficult to determine the scale of the problem in terms of what people are eating simply because it is hard to measure what people eat outside the home. Many surveys ask what food people have eaten and bought in the supermarket, but that ignores the bag of crisps, the bag of sweets and so on.
	Although we have labelling on foods bought in a supermarket, there is no such requirement for food in a restaurant. Many restaurants simply do not give information about the calories in their foods. When I tackled McDonald's about the matter, it said that the information was available if one looked for it and that it was also on the website. However, people queuing to buy a Big Mac are not simultaneously checking the website to find out the number of calories it contains.
	Some fast-food outlets and restaurants provide such information, but it is not uniformly available. If one goes out for a curry, one has no idea how much fat, salt and sugar and how many calories it contains. It is therefore almost impossible to measure calorie intake because the information for reaching a conclusion is unavailable.

John Pugh: When I was a lad, school dinners were not under-caloried, if I may put it like that. There were no tuck shops in those days, but children ate an awful lot of sweets, and did not seem to get obese, which inclines me to the view that lack of activity rather than calorie intake is the principal cause of obesity.

Howard Stoate: I hate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but he is wrong. People eat more calories—they can afford more food than they could in the past. There was a tuck shop at my school, but I could not often afford to buy anything from it. Food, like alcohol, has become relatively cheaper over the years and that means that it is more available.
	However, it is interesting and paradoxical that obesity in this country is a disease of poverty. People who are poor are far more likely to be obese simply because poorer people tend to buy more energy-dense foods, which are cheaper—people can fill their children up for less money. The children are thus more likely to become obese.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has been generous in giving way. I confess to running a tuck shop when I was at school—it was part of the prefects' duties. Before he moves from calories, will he explain why he believes that when we have a lot of information about calories—people can find out about calorific content and the risks of food if they want—people ignore it? Statistics from the Department of Health and other sources show that. Why does he believe that so many people ignore the information and blithely go on in their own way?

Howard Stoate: That is an interesting question, which I can answer. The Select Committee on Health, of which I am now a member, is undertaking an inquiry into health inequalities. Last week, Jamie Oliver came to talk to us about that very issue. I take issue with the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who said that there were two labelling schemes—there are three. One is guideline daily amounts without traffic lights, one is GDA with traffic lights and the other is traffic lights. There are three competing schemes. I told Jamie Oliver at the Health Committee sitting last week that I did not understand the GDA system, and he said that he did not, either. I then asked, "If I'm a mother with three young children and I pick up a packet of something in the supermarket, which says, 'This packet contains 13 per cent. of the GDA for this particular nutrient', what does it mean?" He said that he did not know. This morning, I tackled the Food Standards Agency about the matter, and it could not give me the answer.
	We must have a far more robust mechanism whereby people can receive information quickly. We have the eight-second rule in politics: if we put a letter through someone's letter box, we have eight seconds to convey our message. That is the time it takes to pick up the letter off the floor, take it to the bin and throw it away. That is what happens to political leaflets. People probably have less time than that in the supermarket. If they are busy and trying to buy food for their kids, they pick up a bag of whatever, and think, "Yes, oven chips—in the basket." We must forget the idea that someone can digest a range of nutritional information such as GDA percentages per 100 grams, per half a pack and so on, at the same time as doing the weekly shop with two children in tow. It cannot be done. People do not deliberately avoid or misunderstand the labelling—it is simply opaque and obscure. I have been a doctor for a long time and I do not understand it, so I cannot assume that anybody else does. That is why, frankly, the current voluntary system that food manufacturers and vendors are operating is not working. Voluntary systems did not work with smoking, and in the end we had to legislate. Voluntary systems are not working with food labelling, and we will probably have to legislate on that, too. I ask the Minister to consider that carefully in her response.
	I know that time is pressing and I do not want to detain the House for too long, but we have to take robust action. We need far more robust action on advertising and on point-of-sale labelling and information, so that people have a much better idea of what they are eating and understand exactly what is in it. We must work with the food production industry to ensure that the salt, fat and sugar levels in food are lower wherever possible and to encourage it to transfer from saturated to non-saturated fats. All those things can be done, I hope not by forcing the industry, but by persuading it to do them on its own initiative.
	We also need to do more for people in their communities. Many people come to see me as a GP. I am very pleased that we are now measuring body mass index as part of our quality and outcomes framework, so that we at least have records of it. In addition, the Prime Minister's welcome announcement on vascular screening this year means that we are not only weighing a far broader section of the population, but measuring blood pressure and cholesterol levels far more.
	However, it is one thing to identify people with a problem—raised cholesterol, body mass index or whatever it might be—but another to sort it out. I make a plea to the Minister for far more support in general practice, so that when we pick up someone with a problem, we have the resources to address it, instead of just saying, "Get a diet sheet from the nurse" or "Take tablets." I do not want to go down that road. I want to ensure that we have enough information and community resources to refer people to an appropriate service where needed, whether it is a slimming club, a dietician or whatever. It is common to see obese children now, but it is much more difficult for GPs to send them down an appropriate avenue to deal with that obesity.
	Obesity is a serious issue and I am pleased that the House has found time today for this debate. If we do not keep returning to the issue, it might slip off the agenda, and that would be a disaster for us all. I am therefore very pleased indeed that the Government have called this debate and that hon. Members have joined in. I am impressed by hon. Members' information and knowledge about obesity. In other words, everyone is aware of the issue; tackling it is the problem.
	We probably all agree in our hearts that obesity is down to a combination of diet and exercise. Obviously we can disagree about the exact contribution that each makes, but it would quite wrong to assume that one is more to blame than the other. Both are responsible. As a society, we ignore the problem not just at our peril, but at the peril of our children and grandchildren, because if we do not sort it out, it does not bear thinking about.

Michael Penning: It is a pleasure to respond to this debate on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition. This debate is important, but it is difficult to call it topical on a day when BT has announced 10,000 job losses and at a time when 2,000 jobs a day are being lost in the British economy. Even the Minister was surprised to find herself here this afternoon responding to a debate that she did not know was going to be called.
	On the serious issue of obesity, however, many figures have been cited but probably the most worrying is the one from 2006, which is that one third of all children then were classed as technically obese. That means, on the Government's own statistics, that unless we all do something, 60 per cent. of the British population will be obese by 2050. That is why this is such an important debate.
	The Minister said in her opening remarks that we are not talking about a social group, the working class or anything like that; we are talking about a major issue that affects people across the board. As many hon. Members have said, obesity dramatically affects the lower socio-economic groups in our society—I will come to that—but it dramatically affects certain ethnic groups, too. As we become a more diverse population, some ethnic groups, particularly certain Asian groups, suffer disproportionately from obesity and the medical problems associated with it. I am aware that the Bengali community is particularly worried about type 2 diabetes, which is affecting it so much and which seems to be becoming a genetic problem.
	There were reports in the press this morning that having fat in certain parts of the body affects a person's likelihood of contracting cancer. One report said that having "love handles"—that is, fat in the abdomen area, round the body more generally—makes a person more likely to get cancer. I am worried by such research and the way that it is reported in the press. As other hon. Members have said, the issue should not be about a stigma, but about helping people to live healthier lives. We are all different shapes and sizes, so we should not worry people by saying that if they have the odd extra pound around their abdomen they are more likely to get cancer; rather, we should address the issue of obesity.
	I pay tribute to hon. Members who have talked about the push by the fashion industry and others for size zero, and about those who say that only sizes eight and 10 are acceptable. That is abhorrent, and we should treat it with the contempt that it deserves. I only wish that my daughters would do so. They are absolutely paranoid about their weight—even though they are very sporty, they worry a great deal about what they eat. That worries me as a father, and I am sure that other parents in the House are similarly worried.
	In August, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), the shadow Health Secretary, said that the Conservative party's proposals for a response to the problem will deal with the industry. It cannot be right that legislation alone is the answer; there must be a partnership between the community, businesses and Government. I was conscious that the Minister did not refer to food labelling. I hope that she has time to do so towards the end of the debate. I know that it is difficult for her to talk about that, because legislating is difficult.

Dawn Primarolo: indicated dissent.

Michael Penning: The Minister is indicating that it is not a problem, so perhaps she will explain later why she did not mention it once in her 10-minute speech, even though it is one of the most controversial food issues at the moment.
	As I understand it, one reason why the Health Committee report recommendation on traffic lights was not implemented—it is also why the Conservative party is not saying that it should be implemented—is that under European law it cannot be implemented. That is the issue that is at stake. Unless our European partners agree that traffic lights are the way forward, we cannot introduce them.

Howard Stoate: I asked the Food Standards Agency about that this morning. It told me that European law was not an obstacle and that, in fact, the current recommendations from Europe made it perfectly possible to have a traffic light system if we choose to do so.

Michael Penning: I look forward to looking at the Health Committee's evidence. I had the honour of being a member of that Committee. I too had meetings with officials of the FSA recently, but they indicated to me that European law was a concern. If there is a concern, we need to go for the best possible option. I agree that the guideline daily allowance system is not perfect, but at least it means that information for people who are willing to look for it is on the front rather than the back of packs. Perhaps a voluntary traffic light code would be the way forward.
	I should like to comment on some of the excellent comments that have been made in the debate. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) referred in an intervention to the fact that it would be much better if fewer of our constituents drove their pupils to school. I agree with him. There were some excellent community-based ideas, such as walking buses and so on. When I ask my constituents why they drive their children to school, they say, "Fear." They do not feel that it is safe to let their youngsters walk to school any more, either with a friend or with another parent. We must address that. People in all parties are worried about that, and rightly so.
	Before the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) was cut short—I am sure that he will learn from that crisis—he was absolutely right to say that interaction with youth is very important. I am conscious of the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said, when school facilities are not being used, when schools are closed in the evenings, clubs and other sporting people should have the opportunity to use them.

David Davies: I apologise for my earlier absence—I was at a sitting of the Home Affairs Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree with comments made by the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), who has indicated his support for encouraging more boxing in schools, as a sport that can do a great deal to tackle obesity?

Michael Penning: I declare an interest as someone who boxed for some 30 years. I cannot think of a better way of keeping fit than boxing, and it should be brought back into schools. It is about the fitness regime, not the bouts. If the calories are going in, one can certainly burn them off with a decent boxing trainer. Parents should not fear allowing their children to participate in amateur boxing—the protection these days is very good.
	On some of the other points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, personal responsibility is crucial to any Government proposals to move the issue forward. We cannot be a nanny state—an issue that the Select Committee has considered previously—because the public will reject it and look the other way. At the same time, we need to protect. I am concerned about the poorest groups in the community using more and more ready-made meals, which are getting cheaper and cheaper in our supermarkets but, because of the salt, fat and sugar contents, are the most damaging to our constituents.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) referred to his time on the Select Committee. I had the honour of serving on it after the report he mentioned was published—prior to the 2005 election. I agree that it was one of the greatest reports, although the report on smoking was also remarkable for its cross-party basis and for the legislation that it prompted, perhaps in a way that the House and country might never have believed could happen. It showed how we could protect so many people in our communities.
	In my remaining time, let me say that it is not possible for any Government simply to drive legislation through. Any action we take has to be cross-departmental and based on joined-up thinking with businesses, schools and parents. I hope that this morning Jamie Oliver did not use some of the colourful language he often uses in his TV programmes. He and other chefs have undoubtedly driven forward the whole concept of cooking. My own daughters now cook on a regular basis, which I would never have dreamed of a few years ago. The debate needs to continue. It is shame that the Government have not adopted more recommendations from the 2004 Health Committee report. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how many of those recommendations we can hope to see introduced in the future.

Dawn Primarolo: With the leave of the House, I would like to respond to the issues raised in this interesting and well-informed debate. Let me start with the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), whose comments were echoed by a number of Members, including the hon. Members for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) and for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt).
	Crucial points were made about balance, and it is important that none of us implies that there is a single answer to the problem; it is far more complex than that. The hon. Member for Southport highlighted the importance of activity, food labelling, cooking healthy food, planning, urban design, advertising, reformulation of foods, using pester power to generate pressure for healthy foods, calories on menus, portion sizes and so forth—all matters of great importance that we are taking forward. The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of self-image; the way in which we conduct the debate is crucial for us all—whether it be the Government, non-governmental organisations, local authorities, health service bodies, local communities or whatever. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire touched on that, as did the hon. Member for Croydon, Central.
	The information we convey about maintaining a healthy weight and a healthy lifestyle must not just be about what we eat or how much exercise we take. Nor is it just about making people in our society so obsessed with their diet that they do not eat enough; we have seen the difficulties people get into with eating disorders. As the Minister responsible for public health over the last year and a half, I have sought to be careful with the language that I use and to stress the importance of a healthy lifestyle and living healthier and longer lives rather than going for a one-size-fits-all solution. I endorse all the points that Members have raised in the debate.
	The contribution of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire was helpfully divided into four parts. He made international comparisons, which were absolutely valid, and he spoke about the luxury of food and eating what is necessary. The Government can play a role, as highlighted in the Select Committee report, in the matter of portion size, as it takes us into labelling, how much we are eating and what our food contains.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke of the need for reliable information. We are bombarded with reports and research from all over the world, but what people need is reliable, simple, accurate information, and that is what Change4Life seeks to provide. The hon. Gentleman also perceived a lack of interest. The results of surveys suggest that while people consider obesity to be an important problem, they do not feel that it applies to them. Therein lies the real issue: it is always someone else's problem. Even the parents of obese children do not recognise it.
	The way in which we are conducting the debate on this subject allows us to polarise the issue. We think of it as applying to the person who weighs 50 stone, 20 stone or 30 stone, but once our body mass index rises above 25, we should all be wary of the health implications. We need to ensure that the information is there, that it is accessible and that people perceive it as relevant rather than accusatory or polarising, or paving the way for unintended consequences. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central made the connection with mental health.
	Following the Health Committee's excellent report, the Government acted on all its recommendations. We gave funds to primary care trusts to enable them to produce the necessary information, we updated the child health promotion programmes, we put more funds into the family-nurse partnership, and we changed the national child measurement programme so that parents can be informed of their children's weight and height and told whether the statistics fall within a healthy range. We worked with Ofcom to change the advertising rules, particularly those applying to children.
	The Food Standards Agency has worked relentlessly on reformulations of foods. It has worked relentlessly on salt and sugar, and huge steps have been made, but more needs to be done. The question that I would put to the food industry is, "If some changes can be made by some manufacturers, why cannot all the changes be made by all the manufacturers?" My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) asked that question as well.
	A great deal of work is being done to build on those successes. Following the Health Committee's report, we commissioned the Foresight report. We asked scientists to look critically at all the elements that were contributing to a substantial public health challenge. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) felt that he did not have all the information that he ought to have in connection with the Health Committee's report. I should be happy to send the details to him, and I hope he is now satisfied that the Government acted on its recommendations.
	As for the healthy towns initiative, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have a conversation with his local council. There were 160-odd expressions of interest in the initiative. Councils had to make specific proposals related to what their communities said they needed, and a selection process finally reduced the number to nine. Those nine councils will be monitored, and the measures that are found to work will form the basis of programmes for the future and funding to help all the councils implement their plans.
	That brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Croydon, Central. This is about partnership across Government. It is about what can be done by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, by the Department for Transport and by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Of course it is about the Department of Health, but it is also about the Department for Work and Pensions and what we can do with employers to ensure that there are healthy workplaces. We must work with the Food Standards Agency and local authorities through local area agreements and make this issue a high priority. I look forward to that annual report and I hope that Members will welcome the progress that we are making.
	I fear that we will need to return to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford on food labelling. The Government have been clear that the best and swiftest agreements to achieve with the industry are those of a voluntary nature, but we have made it clear that if progress cannot be made, we will consider other methods. He is right in terms of comparing ourselves with other countries; there is a great deal of information on food labelling and the traffic light system is very clear, but there is still not one system. That is why the FSA is undertaking research to settle once and for all the best, simplest and most straightforward information that needs to be available on food. It will be based on the traffic light system and will ensure that one of the building blocks—but only one—is in place as the Government work with local government, communities, the health service, NGOs and community activists in partnership to deal with the biggest public health challenge that has faced this country in a very long time.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of combating obesity.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her royal assent to the following Acts:
	Planning and Energy Act 2008
	Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008
	Children and Young Persons Act 2008
	Employment Act 2008

International Aid Transparency

Douglas Alexander: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of promoting International Aid Transparency.
	Some argue that in this time of financial turbulence we should put on hold our ambition to achieve the millennium development goals and turn back from the promises we have made to tackle poverty in developing countries, but as the Prime Minister argued at the United Nations in September, now would be the worst time to turn back. For, as he has stated many times, the global problems we face require global solutions. We cannot tackle dangerous climate change without involving Africa and developing countries. We cannot address pressure on resources and energy without involving Africa and developing countries. We cannot hope to feed the world without involving Africa and developing countries.
	Economic history has shown us that, given the reliance that many such countries have on exports, remittances and aid flows, global downturns can have a devastating and potentially long-term impact on the world's poorest countries. Caribbean and central American countries are already seeing a decline in remittances because of a fall in employment in the United States of America. As such sources of financing begin to decline, spending on essential services such as health, education and water supply can suffer quickly.
	For that reason, the international community must keep its promises to help deliver the millennium development goals. We must keep our pledges on the quantity and quality of aid we provide to the developing world and we must ensure that policies to stabilise the global economy are effective in helping developing countries both to tackle short-term crises and to meet long-term development needs.
	To those ends, I wish to update the House on the United Kingdom's role in launching a new international aid transparency initiative that aims substantially to increase the transparency of information on global aid flows; in securing an ambitious outcome at the recent high-level forum on aid effectiveness in Accra; and in securing global commitments to reinvigorate efforts to meet the millennium development goals at the recent United Nations high-level event in New York. I also wish to inform the House of this Government's ambitions for the financing for development conference, which will take place later this month in Doha.

Philip Hollobone: My constituents are very supportive of international aid, because there is a real need for it, but they are hugely concerned that this country is giving hundred of millions of pounds-worth of aid to countries that have nuclear weapons programmes and international space programmes—in particular, India and China. Why is the UK giving £72 million this year to China and £370 million to India, given that those countries spend billions of pounds on nuclear weapons and international space research?

Douglas Alexander: Let me deal with each of those points in turn. We have set criteria in respect of looking to support countries. We consider their commitment to reducing poverty in their own country, and we examine their systems of public financial management when we consider whether budgetary support should be provided. We also examine the issue of human rights, which is why, for example, the UK is involved in the EU dialogue on human rights in China.
	The health indicators for China—in particular, western China—show significantly high continuing levels of tuberculosis, as a consequence of the significant number of people who continue to be afflicted by poverty in that country, and India still has more poor people than the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. In that sense, we face a real choice. If, as I have stated, we are serious about meeting the challenge of the MDGs, we are required to work in India, which has a significant number of poor people.
	It is worth bringing another dimension of this matter to the House's attention. The global rebalancing of economic power that will take place in the years ahead means that it is strongly in this country's national interest to maintain strong partnerships with both India and China. This is not simply about development, where it is unquestionably the case that a country such as China will have a long and continuing engagement with Africa—we have real opportunities to influence how China seeks to exert its influence in that continent—but about the British national interest. It would be precisely the wrong time to communicate a message, whether advertently or inadvertently, to either India or China that somehow we did not recognise the fact that there is a continuing partnership between the United Kingdom and those countries.
	Of course, we will be closing our programme in China in the years to come, but there is a continuing challenge to be met in India, given the high levels of poverty of which I have spoken. We have an obligation to continue to work on the programmes that are in place to ensure, for example, that we help to secure the eradication of as basic a disease as TB and that we combat infant and child mortality in India, the effects of which I shall see for myself when I travel there next week—we have a continuing obligation to work in that country too.

Daniel Kawczynski: That was an extensive reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) on the subject of India and China. Will the Secretary of State explain why, in these difficult economic times, we continue to give aid to Russia, a country that has more than $500 billion in reserves and sits on some of the world's largest oil supplies?

Douglas Alexander: Programmes were put in place in Russia at the time of the change following the fall of the Berlin wall and the change to the Commonwealth of Independent States, as was.  [Interruption.] I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I finish the point. The reason I answered the question on India and China was because it was what I was asked. That may be an unconventional approach for some, but I endeavour to answer the question that is put to me.
	We do not see ourselves having a long-standing development relationship with Russia, but, once again, it is a country that we want to continue to influence within the international environment. If Russia is looking, as it certainly is, on the basis of the progress that it has made economically in recent years—notwithstanding the recent fall in the stock market and the difficulties that it will face with a falling oil price—to exert its influence internationally, there is a case for having a dialogue with Russia about how it will engage in development issues. In the same way, it is important that we engage with Russia on nuclear proliferation issues and on a wide range of strategic concerns.

Stephen Crabb: In the Secretary of State's response to the question about aid to India, China and Russia, is he not falling into the trap of blurring the distinction between international development policy and foreign policy? Money spent by his Department is not supposed to be used to support the latter.

Douglas Alexander: I am always happy to be challenged on whether our aid is tied, but it is interesting to receive such questions from members of the Conservative party, which is well remembered for having tied British aid, for having halved British aid, and for being upbraided by no less an institution than the High Court for not having upheld development principles, for example in relation to the Pergau dam. If the hon. Gentleman is asserting that the Conservative party is a repentant sinner and recognises that it was wrong to tie British aid and to halve it—we have doubled it—in the past, I welcome his support today.
	There is no contradiction between a clear focus on poverty reduction—writing that into law and ensuring transparency in the provision of that aid—and recognising that that relationship allows us an opportunity to engage in dialogue with countries with which we are working. In that sense, it is not an especially difficult point to grasp to say that if one is in dialogue with developing countries, we should seek to influence them benignly in terms of the international environment. That is fundamentally different from an approach that seeks to use British aid money to support British commercial concerns, as was the case under the previous Conservative Government, and that led inexorably to the embarrassment and shame of projects such as the Pergau dam.

Andrew Mitchell: The Secretary of State may have misunderstood the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb), who was making the point that a decision radically to change the nature of our aid programme to India would be a matter not just for the Secretary of State's Department, but for the Foreign Office as well.

Douglas Alexander: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are in close dialogue with our colleagues in the Foreign Office. I last saw the Foreign Secretary about two hours ago, and I will see him again later this afternoon. There is a close working relationship between my Department and the Foreign Office, and I will work closely with our high commissioner in India next week as surely as I will work closely with the head of my Department's programme there.
	The fundamental point is whether the centrality of the need to untie aid is recognised on both sides of the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity today to confirm that that is the policy. I am also sure he will confirm that there is no contradiction between seeking to maintain a policy dialogue with the countries in which we work while also seeking to maintain the clear poverty reduction focus for British aid.

Andrew Mitchell: The leader of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), has made it clear that we support the decision to untie aid, and that remains the settled position of our party.

Douglas Alexander: I am glad to receive that assurance. If we are in the business of offering assurances this afternoon, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will reiterate the commitment to budget support, given the press coverage in  The Daily Telegraph today. At least one of his colleagues, when introducing the debate on global poverty in this House on 24 July, was only too happy to do so. It would be regrettable if the development community in the UK were left with the mistaken perception—as a result of a search for headlines—that the Conservative party had changed its approach to budget support.

Andrew Mitchell: I can reassure the Secretary of State that he can look forward to my contribution to this debate with enthusiasm.

Douglas Alexander: I think I will make up my own mind on that point.

Anne Snelgrove: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that 90 per cent. of DFID's aid is targeted on low-income countries? I have read the article in  The Daily Telegraph and I wonder whether he shares my concern that some of the information in it—and some of the questions from Conservative Members—may be leading to a change in Tory policy that would mean a cut in the Department's budget?

Douglas Alexander: I listened with care—whether I listened with enthusiasm is another matter—to the speech by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) at the Conservative party conference this year, and I did hear him make a commitment to 0.7 per cent. of gross national income. However, I noted that he did not give a timetable for meeting that target. Perhaps he will take this opportunity to confirm that to the House today.

Andrew Mitchell: I am very happy to give the Secretary of State that confirmation.

Douglas Alexander: I am happy to receive that assurance.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) is right to recognise that, perhaps understandably given the tenor of some of the observations that have been made by Conservative Members, there are still concerns about whether, in these challenging economic times, the commitment that was made previously to seek to match the global leadership that the Labour Government have offered in recent years will be delivered in terms of continuing policy commitments by the Conservative party.
	From our point of view, I can assure the House that the global leadership that we have taken in recent years—I will say some more about that this afternoon—reflects a genuine and deeply held conviction on the part of this party that we have obligations as well as shared interest and enlightened self-interest in having a more prosperous, peaceful and sustainable world. That is why it is a matter of consistency that the Government have prioritised international development, not a matter of electoral tactics or a desire to catch up with others. In that sense, I sincerely hope that the work we have undertaken to ensure that every section of British society recognises the importance of development expenditure truly extends to both sides of this House.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State not accept that in these difficult times, it is crucial that there is strong cross-party support for the objectives that the Government have set out? It will be difficult to keep the British people with us, but they have shown that they strongly support international aid and development. Now is not the time for parties to break away from the fundamental commitment to delivering what we have collectively promised.

Douglas Alexander: I find myself in complete agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, who brings great authority and experience to the debate. That is why it was a matter of such regret to me to read the comments ascribed to the Conservative party this morning in  The Daily Telegraph. To bandy about suggestions that there are somehow no strings attached to hundreds of millions of pounds worth of British aid does a disservice to the quality of debate that we have reasonably come to expect from all parties. We have a responsibility to ensure the highest levels of propriety in how British aid money is spent—I will be happy to speak about that in the course of my remarks—and, at the same time, to ensure that the search for headlines does not get in the way of the truth. We are recognisable as a Department that has shown real leadership in ensuring that British aid money is spent effectively and wisely.

Daniel Kawczynski: Can we get back to the core of this debate, which is transparency? Nobody is saying that we should cut aid, but this year we are going to borrow more than £40 billion for the deficit that the socialists have got us into— [ Interruption. ] We are more than £800 billion in debt already, excluding the private finance initiatives— [ Interruption. ] The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), laughs as he always does in such debates, but when we are talking about our country borrowing huge amounts it is important that members of the public should receive an explanation of why we should continue to give aid to countries such as Russia and China.

Douglas Alexander: Let me endeavour to answer the question, in as much as I am able to understand it. If the hon. Gentleman is genuinely saying that the socialists in Lehman Brothers— [ Interruption. ]—in the Mississippi mortgage markets and in the White House are responsible for the global financial crisis, which, of course, afflicts not just this country— [ Interruption. ]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Could we conduct the debate in the usual manner?

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to continue where I left off. If the hon. Gentleman is genuinely suggesting that the socialists in the White House, in the form of Henry Paulson and President Bush, the socialists in the Federal Reserve, including Ben Bernanke and others, the socialists who were responsible for Lehman Brothers and the socialists in the New York stock exchange and the American mortgage markets are responsible for the global financial crisis, I fear that he might not carry his Beck-Bench and Front-Bench colleagues along with him in that analysis, never mind the Government.
	It does a disservice to the seriousness of the global financial crisis to offer such a superficial critique of what has actually happened. That causes me concern. When one gets to the core of Conservative party thinking, one sees that as the intellectual tide has turned against Conservatives they have been left defenceless and uncomprehending about the true nature of the problem. That is why, at a domestic level, they have opposed the steps we have taken on short selling and to protect mortgage holders, and why they did not initially support the significant steps that our Chancellor and Prime Minister have taken. I understand that this is a moment of acute intellectual peril for the right, given that we cannot nudge, privatise or deregulate our way out of the international financial crisis. However, I still thought that we could do better than the quality of debate that we have enjoyed from the Opposition today.

Tom Clarke: I had not expected to intervene in my right hon. Friend's speech at all, far less on what seems to be a partisan point. However, given that some people here today are new to debates on international development and that there appears to be a gap between those on the Opposition Front Bench and some of their Back Benchers, will he assure the House that he will continue his support for development education? Will he therefore keep in touch with the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and the various devolved Administrations on that matter?

Douglas Alexander: I am happy to give exactly the assurance that my right hon. Friend seeks. In many ways, he is the embodiment of the constancy, consistency and passion with which many Labour Members have fought, argued and campaigned for development over so many years, in good times and bad. I assure him that we on the Front Bench remain as committed as he is to ensuring a commitment to development education and the cause of international development more broadly.
	We have a duty, especially in these straitened economic times of which I have just been speaking, to show British taxpayers where their aid money is invested, and the results being achieved by our international development assistance. This House therefore has a pivotal role in holding this Government to account for the effectiveness of the aid that we provide. In that regard, I should like to pay tribute to the work of the International Development Committee, and to acknowledge that its report on aid effectiveness, which was published earlier this Session, was a genuinely valuable contribution to such scrutiny.
	I was pleased that the report recognised that the UK has performed well against the targets in the Paris declaration on aid effectiveness, and that the development assistance committee of the OECD has acknowledged the UK's leadership in aid effectiveness. I also find myself in complete agreement with the Select Committee's assertion that
	"where DFID is a leader, it is right that it promotes its achievements."
	The impact of aid in relieving poverty can be greatly increased if everyone can see where aid funding comes from, who is spending it, and what it should be achieving. That is an issue well understood by Members of this House and particularly, as I have just had the opportunity to acknowledge, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke). His International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006 obliges me to report annually to this House on the UK's provision of aid. It is an obligation that I am happy to fulfil, for we know that transparency improves the effectiveness of aid.

Andrew Murrison: I am sure we all agree that transparency in aid is extremely important. In that regard, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he plans to examine the amount of aid given by the British military? We are more heavily committed to Afghanistan and Iraq than any of our European neighbours, yet the aid that we provide in kind for things such as protecting and building dams and bridges does not appear to feature at all in his plans for transparency. Does he not think that that is an omission?

Douglas Alexander: Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence—with whom I met President Karzai only this morning—is accountable to this House, which has plenty of opportunity to question him about the conduct of his Department. As I recollect, he appeared only recently in a joint session with the Foreign Secretary—it was before either the Defence Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee—to answer exactly that sort of question in respect of Afghanistan. The House has significant opportunities to hold the Defence Secretary and his ministerial colleagues to account over their conduct of the Department in Afghanistan, other theatres, and elsewhere.
	Transparency helps developing country Governments to plan and manage their budgets. In Rwanda last year, just half of all estimated aid flows to that country were recorded in the national budget, which made it difficult for the Rwandan Government to channel resources to the areas of greatest need.
	In addition, transparency enables citizens to hold their Governments to account. In Uganda, a campaign to give information concerning education funding to the citizens of that country helped to increase the share of funds reaching schools from just 20 per cent. in 1995 to more than 80 per cent. by 2001. Transparency limits the scope for corruption in developing countries. The extractive industries transparency initiative, launched by the Government in 2002, requires Governments, as well as oil and mining companies, publicly to declare the value of contracts. That initiative has helped Nigeria to increase revenue collection by $1 billion—money that is now available to spend on meeting the needs of the Nigerian people. In recognition of the power of such transparency to increase the impact of aid, the Government launched a new international initiative in September. The initiative was intended to make information on aid flows more easily available and accessible, so that citizens of both donor and recipient countries could see where and how aid was invested.
	The United Kingdom launched the international aid transparency initiative at the high-level forum on aid effectiveness in Accra in September this year. We did so, I am glad to say, with the support of 13 major donors, including the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank, the European Commission and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The initiative commits donors to publishing more detailed and up-to-date information about aid flows, to giving details and costs of individual projects and their aims, to providing more reliable information about intended future aid, and to agreeing common standards for publishing that information so that it is accessible to everyone.
	The initiative is an important first step towards increasing certainty for both donors and the countries receiving aid, and has been warmly welcomed as such by developing countries and civil society, including by Transparency International and the Publish What You Fund campaign—a coalition including ActionAid and the UK Aid Network. I expect the initiative to be joined by growing numbers of international donors during its design phase, which is under way, and I expect it to be in place by the end of next year.
	In addition to launching the international aid transparency initiative, the United Kingdom played a leading role at the Accra meetings to secure an international agenda for action to improve the quality of global aid. Supported by the outstanding team of civil servants from DFID, I was able to work with my counterparts from across the European Union frankly to raise the level of ambition for the meeting, and to persuade all donors and developing countries to sign up to concrete, time-bound, ambitious agreements to improve the way aid is provided. I would like to inform the House of some of the successes of the meeting, including agreements on mutual accountability, donor co-ordination and predictability of financing.
	The first area of agreement regards mutual accountability between donors and recipient countries. Donors have a legitimate right to monitor the performance of developing country Governments to ensure that aid is well spent—a responsibility that this Government take seriously. We know that aid is more effective when recipient countries in turn monitor donor performance. In Mozambique, for example, independent reviews of both donor and Government performance have helped to improve the predictability of aid and reduce the costs for all parties involved. The House may be interested to learn that such rankings have rated DFID as the most effective donor for the past three years. In Accra, both donors and recipient Governments agreed to develop stronger mechanisms to hold each other accountable for meeting commitments, so that the good practice that I described in Mozambique is in future the rule, not the exception, in international aid.
	The donors gathered in Accra made a commitment to improving the co-ordination of aid. Developing country Governments spend far too much time managing donors, and are left with too little time to conduct the proper business of government as they take their countries forward on their development paths. Over the past four years, Government staff in Uganda have dealt with more than 1,000 donor-led projects. In one year alone, the Government of Vietnam played host to 791 donor missions—more than three for every working day. Government staff in Mozambique have to maintain 1,000 different bank accounts simply to meet differing donor requirements. It was because of such concerns that this Government last year launched the international health partnership to improve donor co-ordination in the health sector. The agreements made in Accra take that approach beyond the health sector. Developing countries committed to taking the lead in co-ordinating and agreeing an effective division of labour between donors. In turn, donors agreed to respect those priorities and work together to put better co-ordination into practice.
	In developing countries where aid funding can be equivalent to as much as 75 per cent. of the national budget, it is vital that donors provide as much clarity as possible regarding intended future aid flows. Our Government are taking part in 10-year agreements in the education sector; as part of that, developing countries provide robust, costed 10-year plans. We have already made such agreements in a number of countries, including Ghana, Mozambique and Rwanda. By doing so, we are giving those countries the confidence that they need to build a school; they know that the money will be there to maintain it, and can train teachers knowing that they can afford to pay a salary at the end of that training.
	In Accra, donors agreed to provide regular and timely information on the aid that they expect to provide in the next three to five years. Donors also agreed to increase the share of aid channelled through to partner country budgets. Those measures will help developing countries to plan and manage their budgets better, to use resources more effectively and to provide the services that their citizens need.
	The successful conclusion to the meeting of donors and developing countries in Accra provided a positive precursor to the high-level event on the millennium development goals held later in September at the United Nations in New York. That meeting brought together literally the broadest alliance ever assembled to fight for a common goal to tackle global poverty. The UN Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly were joined by 140 countries, alongside dozens of multinational chief executives, faith leaders and non-governmental organisations. The commitments made included a malaria action plan, launched to point the way towards universal coverage of insecticide-treated bed nets by 2010, and achieving near-zero malaria deaths by 2015. Those gathered made commitments to provide emergency food aid in the horn of Africa, and the rapid distribution of support, including seeds and fertilisers for 30 priority countries in time for the next planting season. A major new financing force was launched with the aim of raising funds to help recruit 1 million health workers and save 10 million lives. To get 25 million more children into school by 2010, as a milestone to universal primary education by 2015, international partners launched a "Class of 2015" partnership. Those and other commitments combined to form $16 billion-worth of pledges to tackle poverty. In response, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called the meeting
	"an inspiring day at the United Nations".
	As I said at the outset, the coming weeks will, however, be crucial in determining the global response to the slowdown in the world economy. The G20 leaders meeting in Washington this weekend should send a clear and unequivocal signal to the international community of their continued commitment to international development. At the financing for development conference in Doha at the end of this month, donors should agree that changes to international financial regulations will not harm the interests of the poorest countries. All parties should reaffirm the commitments on aid effectiveness made in Accra. Donors should agree to keep promises on aid, as the UK, I am glad to say, is doing, and they should reaffirm their commitment to maintaining open markets and resist the threat of protectionism.
	I hope that I have given the House an assurance that the Government are committed to tackling global poverty at a time of global uncertainty. It is not only our moral duty to help our fellow men, women and children to lift themselves out of poverty but it is in our interest as a nation to do so. Government Members, at least, are united in that conviction.
	The financial crisis and its effects have underscored the interdependence of nations at the beginning of the 21st century, and while recent events have shown every family across Britain to be connected to some of the richest people in the world so, too, are we connected to the world's poorest people. In our response to dangerous climate change, the depletion of natural resources, the threat of global disease, and indeed the threats to our global security, there is quite simply no more "over there" and "over here". Tackling those great problems requires a truly global mindset, and calls for global solutions, which means bringing the fifth of the global population who live in extreme poverty into our global community. The United Kingdom will therefore keep working to tackle disease, illiteracy and hunger. As I have set out, we will continue to lead international efforts to ensure that any aid delivered provides the benefits that the world's poorest need, and that British taxpayers rightly demand.

Andrew Mitchell: The year 2008 has been a distinctly mixed one for international development. We remain stubbornly off-track to meet the millennium development goals, and fuel prices and food shortages have left millions at risk. Natural disasters have hit, leaving destruction in their wake—floods in India, a cyclone in Burma, and an earthquake in Pakistan. Man-made emergencies in Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan have brought insecurity and misery to many. Amid all that, the global financial crisis has thrown the whole developing world and the international aid industry into turmoil.
	At the outset, I echo the Secretary of State's opening words about now being a time of hardship when the poor suffer most, and his closing words about the importance, particularly now, of the rich world standing by its commitments. There is, however, some cause for hope. DFID's reputation as an outstanding development agency continues, and we are all rightly proud of it. The Department has continued to fight poverty in some of the world's poorest countries; it has accepted that poor sanitation is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths and launched a new policy for that sector; and, as the Secretary of State outlined, it has led international efforts to improve aid co-ordination, championing in Accra an agreement that serves as a booster to the three-year-old Paris declaration.
	I should like to reassert a point that I have made numerous times in the House and elsewhere, and which the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), made: most people want international development to be removed from the realm of party politics all together. International development policy is not Tory, or Labour, or Liberal, but British. But, of course, we on the Opposition Benches have a role to play in holding the Government to account on their international development work and policies, so we will support and encourage DFID when we believe that it is doing the right thing, but probe and ask questions of it when we think that there is room for improvement. We will also press the Government to do more in areas that we consider to be important. That should be the nature of a responsible Opposition's approach to development, and it is certainly our approach on the Conservative Benches.

Douglas Alexander: In the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, may I ask him to confirm that he therefore accepts that DFID, as a leading development agency, does not give any money with no strings attached? I am sure that he will be happy to offer that assurance to the House on the basis of his scrutiny of the Department's annual report.

Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his intervention, and in my speech I will come precisely to the point to which he alludes. [ Interruption.] As I said, I shall answer the point in my own way, and he can wait, I hope, with patience.

Anne Snelgrove: The problem that Government Members have with the hon. Gentleman's point about removing party politics from the international development debate is that during the Conservative party's term in office, the money that was spent on aid halved as a proportion of GDP, and, if it had not been for the political and non-governmental organisations' pressure on his party, it would have gone down even further. What is his comment on that?

Andrew Mitchell: My comment is that, first, the hon. Lady has seen and knows the Opposition's commitments, and, secondly, she makes my point for me: people hearing that sort of intervention, having heard what I said about the importance of taking the issue out of party politics, will find it rather tiresome.

Daniel Kawczynski: We did not— [ Interruption. ]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Kawczynski.

Daniel Kawczynski: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The Secretary of State did not mention once in his speech the European Union or the funding that it gives to international aid. Of course, our taxpayers' money is increasingly spent by the European Union, and I had been hoping to hear from the Secretary of State a bit more about the transparency of EU spending in the third world. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that the Secretary of State did not either do that or share with the House any further information about the transparency governing the EU's spending of our money?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend will have noticed that the debate refers specifically to transparency. A transparent international aid policy is one that is accountable to its—

Douglas Alexander: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Mitchell: I shall.

Douglas Alexander: It is just that in the spirit of co-operation of which the hon. Gentleman has spoken today, I had hoped that I might be able to assist him in answering the question from his own Back-Bencher, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). When I mentioned "European partners", that was a reference to the European Union. I know that that is an alien concept to some on the Opposition Benches, but we believe that the members of the European Union—the other 26—are our partners. So, when I spoke of the partners, I was speaking about the European Union.

Andrew Mitchell: I do not wish to be unfair to the Secretary of State, but before he jumped in, I was just about to answer my hon. Friend by saying that a transparent international aid policy is one that is accountable to its investors, the British taxpayer, as well as to its end-users, the local people in developing countries. The policy must be efficient and effective, or face a critical response from those who have a stake in it. Most importantly, it must deliver.
	We welcome the launch of the international aid transparency initiative. We Conservatives have repeatedly championed greater transparency in aid. We have consistently argued—not least as I did in my speech at the Conservative party conference the year before; as the Secretary of State is an enthusiast of my speeches, he will have noticed—that as well as championing effectiveness in aid spending, we must stand up for transparency. We will watch closely to ensure that the new international aid transparency initiative is fully implemented by the Department for International Development and the other agencies that have signed up to it.
	The Secretary of State has no room for complacency on this issue. One of the initiative's commitments is to
	"share more detailed and more up-to-date information about aid in a form that makes information more accessible to all relevant stakeholders."
	There is a great deal to be done to put flesh on the bones of that promise. The DFID website is a most important tool, but it is woefully light on information about DFID spending on development. When country profiles exist, they often lack up-to-date, systematic detail on what DFID money has been spent on and how. Many recipients of our aid do not even have a country profile on the website, and in many country programmes there is no obvious way for a member of the public in a developing country to find out in detail how DFID aid money is being spent there.
	For example, the DFID website offers just a few paragraphs about how our £3 million aid budget is spent in The Gambia and contains no easily accessible detail about the six major sectors in which many millions of British pounds will be spent in that country in the next few years. I am not talking about complicated information, and it should not effectively be classified information.
	There are good precedents for greater transparency. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria publishes on its website all its budgets and spending decisions in each of the countries where it works. Like its websites for other countries, its website for The Gambia clearly explains who the local fund agent is, the exact amount of the approved grants down to the last dollar, the name of the principal recipient, the amount actually disbursed, a disbursement rating, and the dates on which the programme started and the money was disbursed. It also gives details of unsuccessful proposals.
	Let no one be in any doubt about the importance of the DFID website. It is not only the vital means through which British people can find out how their money is being spent, but an essential reference point for journalists, civil society and ordinary citizens in developing countries. I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to redesigning the DFID website, but will he reassure me that its content—and not only its appearance—will be comprehensively overhauled? Will he learn lessons from sites such as that of the global health fund and publish a detailed breakdown of spending to which everyone can have access?
	I also have a query about changes in the figures published from one year to the next. The casual observer in London, Nairobi or Freetown would not necessarily spot them straight away, but the Conservative international development team is nothing if not sharp-eyed. In the Department's report, the statistics show that no money was spent in Djibouti in 2006-07. When the new international development statistics were published in October, the figure was mysteriously changed to £4 million, apparently all for other bilateral aid. Similarly, the Madagascan bilateral programme rose by £14 million and the Ghanaian programme by £13 million; there are numerous other examples. In the winding up, will the Minister explain the reasons for those discrepancies and will a system for explaining them as they arise be established? A revamped website with comprehensive information will be seriously hindered if the statistics in it can be changed year on year without explanation.

Anne Snelgrove: Would the hon. Gentleman not be better advised to ensure that his sharp-eyed researchers are put to work on his party's international development policy? I do not know whether he is embarrassed by the comments of the Overseas Development Institute's Alan Hudson, who described the hon. Gentleman's proposals on the ODI blog as "derivative" and just a rehash of the Government's.

Andrew Mitchell: We can always swap these things across the Floor of the House. The hon. Lady will have seen that  The Guardian, which is not always a supporter of the Conservative party, spoke in glowing terms of our policies on international development in a recent article.

Brooks Newmark: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party, in pursuing this initiative over the past two years—for example in Rwanda, where 120 MPs and volunteers went this year—is leading from the front in terms of showing people what we can do to help those in developing countries?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. There are many policy areas where Conservative Members have been leading, coaxing and encouraging the Government, with modest success in some cases.
	It is vital that DFID can keep demonstrating value for money for the British taxpayer. Until recently, work towards reaching the aid target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product, to which we are all signed up, operated in a benign atmosphere, but that is no longer the case. Throughout the country, people are feeling the effects of the economic downturn. If we are to uphold the case for international aid, we must be able to show that every pound spent returns 100p of value.

Douglas Alexander: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the need to be able to maintain public support for international development. I am sure that he would not wish to be accused of trying to have his cake and eat it. Will he therefore return to the question that I asked him earlier? In the light of the praise that he, as a Front Bencher, is willing to offer DFID as a leading development agency, and in the light of the remarks about DFID from the Conservative party reported in  The Daily Telegraph, will he now assert, as I requested, that not a single penny of British development money is spent with no strings attached?

Andrew Mitchell: I have been generous in giving way to the Secretary of State again, but he must wait until I come to that passage in my speech.
	The Secretary of State seems to view transparency in terms of processes and inputs—being open about what we are spending and where. That is a good start, but it is only half of the story. We also need transparency about outcomes and outputs—what our aid is actively achieving on the ground. Once again, I urge him to consider carefully our proposal for a fully independent aid evaluation watchdog to be set up to report to Parliament, not to the Secretary of State.
	The Government have enthusiastically promoted a policy of direct budget support—here I come to the point about which the Secretary of State has intervened twice—whereby Britain hands money directly to Governments in developing countries to spend according to their own expenditure and audit systems in support of their national poverty reduction plans. In 2007-08, £366 million of British aid was spent in that way. According to the respected non-governmental organisation, Transparency International, the UK gives some of its largest donations to Governments who have real problems with governance and corruption. For example, Tanzania ranks 102nd on the corruption index, yet it received £105 million as direct budget support last year. In February this year, President Kikwete of Tanzania dissolved his entire cabinet following a financial scandal, and in January he fired the head of the central bank after international auditors found that more than $120 million was missing.
	Uganda ranks 126th on the Transparency International index, down from 111th in 2007, yet it received £35 million in direct budget support from Britain. President Museveni is planning to buy a new £24 million G5 Gulfstream jet plane. In 2006, massive corruption in the Ugandan health ministry was exposed. In June this year, an important report by the Public Accounts Committee warned the Government about direct budget support.

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman cites the example of Tanzania. Does he accept my undertaking that I spoke at length to President Kikwete and was able effectively to communicate to him the importance that we attach to his cleaning up the difficulties that arose at the Bank of Tanzania? Does he further accept that we gave very clear directions to the president on what we required in terms of tackling corruption, even if it took the investigation to the heart of his cabinet and Government? That is surely an example of where it is possible to achieve the development outcomes that we are seeking—whereby in Tanzania more than 4 million children are in schools and there are 40 per cent. more primary school teachers—at the same time as ensuring the dialogue to achieve the genuine policy changes that we want to see?

Andrew Mitchell: I have no doubt of the Secretary of State's bona fides on what he said to the President of Tanzania. I went there myself last year because I wanted to find out the extent to which we were monitoring the large amount of taxpayers' money going into the Tanzanian budget. I must tell the Secretary of State that I am not satisfied from that visit, or from the discussions that I had with Tanzanian Ministers and also with his officials, that the money in question is properly accounted for, which is why I am making this point.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The longer I listen to the hon. Gentleman's arguments, the more concerned I am, especially when he suggests that DFID money is somehow being frittered away and not being properly accounted for. I visited Uganda quite recently. He is missing the point that a lot of DFID money goes towards parliamentary strengthening so that the countries to which we award money can account much better for the money that they spend. He is quite wrong to suggest that the money is not accounted for properly.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady must join me in studying the important report by the Public Accounts Committee that warned the Government about direct budget support. The report bears careful study with regard to getting budget support right. I highlight the following extracts. On page 6, the report states:
	"Estimates of leakage and corruption in the use of developing nations' budgets are many times higher than would be acceptable in UK domestic expenditure."
	Page 12 states:
	"DFID has not estimated how much funding through developing governments is wasted or used for corrupt purposes, but the estimates of others are worrying. For example, in Tanzania and Uganda other bodies have estimated that 20% of procurement expenditure is lost through corruption."
	The report, which is by a highly respected Committee of the House, says on page 6:
	"DFID provides budget support expenditure in countries where expenditure and output data are so weak that it cannot monitor progress effectively."
	Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister making the winding-up speech can tell the House what their Department has done to address the serious questions raised by the Public Accounts Committee in its report.

Douglas Alexander: Of course we look with great care at all the points made by the Public Accounts Committee, but I return to the central point. Beyond the headlines and the allegations, what specific steps is the hon. Gentleman seeking for DFID to take on budget support? He has already asserted that he recognises the case for budget support in principle; he recognises that it is central in being able to provide services such as health and education, and he is united in that view with non-governmental organisations and respected voices in the development community across the spectrum. I would be grateful if he assisted the House in detailing the specific steps that he requires from DFID and from the developing country Governments with whom we work.

Andrew Mitchell: I will come directly to the Secretary of State's point.
	The fact that we give money to Governments who are not trusted by their own citizens is, I submit to the House, a serious concern. The Secretary of State should review urgently whether it is right that hard-working British families are contributing directly to the Governments of those countries. It might also be appropriate for the Select Committee on International Development to investigate the issue further, and I hope that the Chairman of that Committee will reflect on that.
	I accept that giving aid directly to Governments through budget support can be the right way forward in some circumstances, but we need to apply stringent tests and to ensure that the money is used properly. Where there is doubt, the money should be given to specific sectors such as health or education, and overseen more carefully. Whenever Britain gives budget support, up to 5 per cent. of the total amount should be earmarked to help local Parliaments, civil society and audit institutes to track where the money is going and to hold their Governments to account. During a recent visit to Ghana, which rightly receives budget support, I was most impressed to witness on television Members of Parliament being held to account by parliamentarians in forthright terms for their spending of public funds. We should actively encourage that.

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman has brought his characteristic rhetorical authority to a point in claiming that we should not give budget support in all circumstances—we do not. He suggested that where there is evidence of corruption, we should take action—we do. He suggests that we should not provide budget support uniformly—we provide it to fewer than half the countries in which DFID has programmes of £10 million or more. I would be interested to hear the specific examples that he wishes to bring to the Department's attention. Otherwise, it would seem, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) suggested earlier, that he is making simply a rhetorical, derivative statement of what is already Government policy.

Andrew Mitchell: I clearly set out that the Secretary of State should acknowledge the approach that the Conservative party would take, were we to form a Government after the next election. I specifically raised with him—privately, but I know that he will not mind my mentioning the matter in the Chamber—budget support to Cambodia, which he has now brought to a conclusion, at least temporarily. However, he must accept my point that budget support has raised serious questions in the minds of taxpayers. In particular, he and the Department should examine carefully the report of the Public Accounts Committee. Transparency means being open and honest when we get things wrong.

Ivan Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Tory "Globalisation and Global Poverty" policy commission report? It states:
	"That's why the report favours direct budgetary support rather than highly prescriptive aid on one side."

Andrew Mitchell: I do not wish to repeat myself, but the Under-Secretary has heard me say that we believe that, in some circumstances, budget support is the best way in which to give aid and development support in countries. However, I have also drawn his attention to its shortcomings. As for the Conservative party's excellent report on globalisation and poverty, which I commend to him, I sleep with it under my pillow.

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman has been gracious and generous in giving way. Given his forthright assertion that budget support can, in some circumstances, be the best way in which to give aid, will he clarify the point that I have raised twice? If budget support per se is not "no strings attached aid", will he cite a single example of the Department's giving aid with no strings attached?

Andrew Mitchell: I have already made it clear to the Secretary of State that putting budget support into a general budget exercises little control on the taxpayer's behalf in monitoring its effectiveness and value for money. He does not have to take my word for it—he can take that of the authoritative Public Accounts Committee, which made that very point.
	Last month, the National Audit Office report on the Department's performance in insecure environments revealed evidence of serious corruption in DFID projects in Iraq and poor project design and performance in Afghanistan. It found that only half the DFID projects in the most insecure countries achieve their aims and that almost a quarter suffer from fraud and financial problems.
	As I witnessed in Afghanistan recently, brave DFID staff work hard in dangerous environments to improve people's lives, but their individual courage must be supported by radical policy and management improvements. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the Department learns the lessons and implements the recommendations of that important NAO report? I hope that the Under-Secretary will comment on that in his winding-up speech.
	The most important driver of international development is clearly economic growth, which lifts people out of poverty and gets developing countries on their feet. One has only to consider China, India and Brazil to realise the truth of that. However, the Doha round of trade talks has ground to a halt and shown no sign of life for many months. Now that one of the big obstacles to an agreement—the elections in the United States—is out of the way, what is the Secretary of State doing to kick-start the talks? Will he make a point of going around the capital cities of Europe, banging the drum for an agreement on a pro-poor trade deal that developed and developing countries alike can accept?
	Now that the former Trade Commissioner has returned once again to a seat at the Cabinet table, and bearing in mind that he won the occasional admirer, not least from the Conservative Benches, for his efforts to free up the international trading system, will the Secretary of State consult his good friend, the noble Lord, about the steps that the Government should take to reinvigorate the Doha process?

Douglas Alexander: The temptation was too great. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will speak to the noble Lord Mandelson later this afternoon. Even before the US election, we spoke to the Obama and McCain campaigning teams about the urgency of the US recognising the need for a global trade deal. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it remains high on the Government's agenda to work with all parties to find a way forward for Doha and, more broadly, global trade.

Andrew Mitchell: The Secretary of State is to be commended for his conversations with the noble Lord.
	In stark contrast to the positive potential of economic changes, the most malignant factor among many that stop development working is conflict, along with bad governance, corruption and instability. These are what keep people mired in poverty and condemn them to a life of misery and fear.
	In Burma, we have just witnessed the disgusting spectacle of 14 brave pro-democracy protestors being handed jail terms of up to 65 years for their part in last year's protests. I am sure that the whole House will want to express its solidarity with the people of Burma in their struggle for freedom and democracy. Last year, the Government agreed to increase British aid to Burma, after sustained pressure from leading NGOs and Opposition Members. Perhaps the Minister could update the House on how that aid is being spent and what it is achieving.
	In Zimbabwe, millions of people are suffering at the hands of Mugabe and his henchmen. Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced, many across the Limpopo river into South Africa, and the economy is in ruins. It is clearly right that we should stand by the people of Zimbabwe, because otherwise they will lose out twice over: first, from having selfish and tyrannical leaders, and secondly, from a lack of much-needed support. What is DFID doing to support the people of Zimbabwe through the brave and determined NGOs on the ground, and what precautionary steps is it taking in the face of the looming food crisis there?
	In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a humanitarian crisis has seen many thousands of people driven from their homes in only the clothes that they were standing in.

Brooks Newmark: On the subject of that conflict, does my hon. Friend think it helpful that Mrs. Rose Kabuye, the President of Rwanda's chief of protocol, was arrested just four days ago during an official visit to Germany, as a result of a highly dubious decision by a French provincial judge?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Considerable concern has been expressed about the improbability of the charge that Mrs. Kabuye faces and about the process being conducted. Perhaps my hon. Friend has heard what Louis Michel, the European Commissioner, said yesterday. He doubts the validity of the French report that led to Mrs. Kabuye's arrest and has called on the French judiciary to establish the truth. My hon. Friend will also have noted the concern expressed by the African Union that the decision amounts to pursuing a French Rwandan agenda, which is most unhelpful at this time. I very much agree.
	There are occasional confusions in the Congo between the symptoms and the causes of the appalling situation there. The true cause lies with the failure to disarm and repatriate the rump of the Hutu genocidal regime, which fled to Kivu from Rwanda in 1994 and has never left. That is the crux of the matter. It is the presence of those forces that allows General Nkunda to claim the spurious pretext of protecting the Tutsi population.
	The conflict has deep-seated roots and as the days go by, the crisis gets worse, not better. I hope to be in Goma this weekend to see the humanitarian situation for myself. It is not correct that fundamentally new political agreements are needed. They are already there in United Nations resolution 1804 of March this year, in the Goma agreement of January, which was signed by 22 armed groups, and in the Nairobi communiqué of last November between the Governments of Rwanda and the DRC, which was reaffirmed last weekend. Nor is it true that MONUC—the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo—lacks the mandate to provide threatened communities with the necessary defence. We are talking about a chapter VII assignment, which enables such power as the UN can deploy to be used to protect civilian populations. The issue, therefore, is not the mandate; it is the effectiveness and capacity of the force.
	We on the Conservative Benches accept that European Union troops might need to be deployed. I would make two points about that, however. First, such deployments would give an opportunity to European countries whose armed forces are not so overstretched to play a meaningful role, if at some point it is decided to send European Union troops. Secondly, the UN force on the ground in the DRC now is already the largest in the world, with no fewer than 18 countries providing troops and direct support, and is already deployed in Goma. That force is the first and best way for the international community to exercise its responsibility to protect. We welcome today's announcement by the UN that the force is to be reinforced. If the force is deemed insufficient and if, God forbid, its members are hurt defending civilians from attack, the international community must immediately stand by and reinforce them. Otherwise, the responsibility to protect will be seen as a piece of international grandstanding by the world's leaders—a sham, with neither credibility nor bite.

Andrew Murrison: It is clearly a matter for those countries involved in what we might call the coalition of the unwilling to determine whether they want to commit the EU battle group—the one not provided by the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to make it clear to those countries, particularly France and Germany, that any deployment of EU troops does not absolve them from their responsibility to take a full and proper role in Afghanistan, to which they are committed?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind Members that the points made in that intervention are rather wide of the mark of today's debate?

Andrew Mitchell: I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for keeping me on the straight and narrow.
	The international community, through the UN, must not simply will the end through its resolutions; it must also provide the means. It is the UN that is there already, and to the UN that those caught in this dreadful crisis are looking. Any attack on those UN soldiers who are today in harm's way in Goma and the Congo, from whatever source, is a direct attack on the international community and on all of us. The House would be failing in its duty if it did not recognise that.
	Today's debate gives us the chance to salute and thank all those who are involved in the battle against global poverty, to recognise the causes of that poverty and the many different ways of tackling it, and to spur the Government on, to ensure that Britain continues to play the extremely important role that the House has consistently supported and endorsed.

Tom Clarke: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell). He said many interesting things, and I particularly welcome what he had to say on the importance of reaching an agreement and of trying to remove conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I hope to return to that.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a quite excellent speech, as one would expect. Based on the policies that his Department is pursuing, transparency was very much apparent. We have made considerable progress, even in the past couple of years but, of course, we all accept that a challenge remains.
	Before I turn to the substantial points that I intend to make, I must say that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has a tough job in trying to persuade his colleagues on the Back Benches to share the positive approach that he is now adopting. I wish him well in that pursuit. I hope that that does not sound as if I am chastising the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison).

Andrew Mitchell: I am happy to reassure the right hon. Gentleman, and to lift from his shoulders that unhappy concern by saying that the policy that I have enunciated and set out today has the full and total support of the shadow Cabinet and the parliamentary party.

Tom Clarke: Nobody in the House who welcomes the consensus that we thought was being developed would do anything other than welcome that. However, we cannot ignore the interventions that were made. They were almost entirely negative, which does not help the hon. Gentleman in his task.

Stephen Crabb: rose—

Tom Clarke: I will give way once more. I know that others want to speak, so I shall respond to the intervention, then carry on with the points that I want to make.

Stephen Crabb: The questions from some of my hon. Friends during the Secretary of State's opening speech to which I believe the right hon. Gentleman was referring were reasonable and current. They were about middle-income countries and countries that, through their economic growth rates, are approaching that status, and how compatible that is with current levels of aid to those countries. They were entirely reasonable questions to ask. The right hon. Gentleman should not infer that Conservative Back Benchers are somehow not in favour of meeting the 0.7 per cent. of gross national income target, or wider international development policies.

Tom Clarke: Even that intervention, when combined with what was said earlier, leads me to make a couple of points that, frankly, I had not intended to make— [ Interruption. ] I did not interrupt any Opposition Members. This is a democracy, but it is also an elected Parliament in which some of us are entitled to express our opinions.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: All of us.

Tom Clarke: Indeed. I agree that we are all entitled to express our opinions, and I am about to express mine.
	We were asked, for example, about India. What are we to assume from these interventions? Members of all parties visited India a year or two ago to examine the very serious issue of tuberculosis, yet 1,000 people still die there every day. Quite frankly, the people we met there in the saddest of circumstances were not asking questions about their Government's foreign policy or about nuclear weapons. The same applied when, as I vividly recall, we visited Uganda. Lord Steel was with us on that visit. We sat outside a mud hut where a young man, surrounded by his family, friends and other villagers, was within just a few hours of dying of HIV/AIDS. Again, frankly, most of those people did not ask about the policies of their Government. I am not saying that we should not ask about them, but what I am saying very strongly is that I have never believed that individual human beings, wherever they live, from Delhi to Darfur, should be punished because of the policies of their Governments.
	Let me continue with the points that I had intended to make. Given the global crisis, I welcome the commitment given by Opposition Front Benchers as well as by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to foreign aid at 0.7 per cent. of gross national income by 2013 or, indeed, earlier. When I last raised this matter on 16 July, my right hon. Friend gave me an assurance that the Government were still on course to achieve that target. I believe that the House has reached a consensus on the matter over the years, notwithstanding what might have been said today, and I also know that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel strongly about it. If individual Members put it on the record that they believe in this agreement and if all the political parties adhere to it in their manifestos, I will certainly leave the House a much happier person.
	I welcome this debate. As has been said, it is consistent with the aims of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006, which I had the privilege of piloting through the House with a great deal of support. The Act will mainly be remembered because it has led this Government—and it will be compelling for future Governments—to present an annual report to the House. Principal among the issues that we expect to be covered is how well we are doing on the 0.7 per cent. GNI target and, I hope, by how much we have advanced on it. The Act embraces our commitment to the millennium development goals. Given that its title includes the very word "transparency", transparency is clearly of the essence—and I am very pleased that the Government have taken it on board.
	In the same spirit, I welcome DFID's recent annual report to Parliament, which we have not had a chance to debate until today. I genuinely believe that this report is excellent. It is an informative tome for scholars and members of the public alike, presenting helpful information in a clear and transparent way about what is being done and what needs to be done. Indeed, armed with that information, our debate helps to underline how important transparency is and how the report takes us forward.
	I do not want to get into further exchanges with Conservative Members, but I gently point out to them the European Union issues covered in the latest annual report. Page 115 presents a comprehensive and transparent account of our relationship with the EU. It even gives the Government's interpretation of the Lisbon treaty. I do not think for a second that my right hon. Friend can reasonably be criticised on that score.
	There must be transparency at every level: in the Department itself, in terms of coherence between Departments, and in the holding to account of the European Union as well as the other international bodies, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. I welcome DFID's commitment to the international aid transparency initiative, but the truth is that it works both ways. The developed countries must know where the money is supposed to go, and the developing countries must know when it will arrive and how much there will be. The absence of that knowledge has been cited as one of the main reasons for the lack of aid effectiveness. Most important of all, the people who are meant to be helped by the aid must know when it is coming and how it should be spent. That enables us to judge whether it is being spent as effectively as we all want it to be.
	There are a variety of ways in which the Governments of developed and developing countries can help. In Uganda, for example, an information campaign helped to increase the share of funds reaching schools from 20 per cent. in 1995 to 80 per cent. in 2001. We can only imagine the positive impact that that is having on people's lives.
	I want to talk about some current issues, in each of which transparency is of the essence. I followed last week's debate on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but it is appropriate to return to that important subject. I say that especially in view of the announcement by the United Nations earlier today that 3,000 more troops were to be sent to the eastern DRC. That is a positive action which I broadly welcome, but I feel that there are other countries, particularly in that region, with a wider role to play. I am thinking particularly of Rwanda. As this is a debate about aid and transparency, I think it appropriate to point out that we give the Rwandan Government £46 million in aid every year. I think that I am as familiar as anyone can be with the circumstances in Rwanda and the DRC, both of which I visited recently. On those visits, along with colleagues, I had the opportunity to meet Presidents Kabila and Kagame.
	As was mentioned in last Thursday's debate, our programme of aid for Rwanda comes with a 10-year memorandum of understanding that expressly states that the Rwandan Government must be committed to regional stability. It was therefore a great shock to me to read the following comments of a spokesperson from the Rwandan Foreign Ministry:
	"The prevailing assumption that the crisis is a matter between Rwanda and the DRC is wrong, contrary to what some in the international community continue to say. This misconception leads some parties seeking to intervene to demand a meeting between the heads of state of Rwanda and the DRC as a solution to the internal crisis in the DRC."
	That strikes me as somewhat naive. The DRC crisis is a problem on Rwanda's doorstep, and President Kagame's unique status gives him the opportunity to exert a positive influence on an outcome that could lead to the kind of reconciliation that Rwanda itself has experienced.

Andrew Mitchell: I, too, noticed that comment, and I was surprised as well, but I think there is a clear explanation. The conflict is not between the Congo and Rwanda, which is why, as I understand it, the President was unwilling to attend a bilateral meeting with President Kabila. He did, however, attend a meeting in Nairobi last weekend with a number of Heads of State of countries affected in the region.

Tom Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. We all support the UN's efforts to try to get a solution to this dreadful problem.
	In that situation as elsewhere, mineral extraction has once again formed the backdrop to tragic events. At this juncture, I would like to touch on the comments made in last week's debate by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. He spoke about the extractive industries directive, an initiative that I wholeheartedly support. In the same debate the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who I very much welcome to his post and who is to wind up the debate, undertook to look into transparency in mineral extraction. I was wondering whether he would take the opportunity to inform us further of the Government's thinking.
	There are challenges of poverty eradication, providing clean water, reducing the rates of infant mortality, substantially improving health care, investing more in education for girls and boys and dealing with conflict and its effect on developing countries. They are ongoing, as is the importance of climate change and the environment—all of them encapsulated in the millennium development goals. It is in that spirit, too, that I welcome not only DFID's annual report to this House, but the UN's 2008 millennium development goals report, which offers insight that can lead to real optimism. Those objectives and much more can be achieved only on the basis of the transparency to which we are absolutely committed.
	The existence of corruption, the absence of accountability and the need for good governance are compelling reasons for all the actions that the Government have taken and which my right hon. Friend explained in his opening speech. A debate of this kind would be incomplete were we not to take on board the impact of the global economic crisis on the poorest countries in the world today. The truth is that whatever anxieties we in the western world are experiencing, they cannot be compared with the devastation on top of existing poverty that those who live in developing countries find are heaped on their misfortunes. There is no prospect of a level playing field and it would be idle to pretend that it is within our reach. What we can do is acknowledge that declining commodity prices, disappearing markets, unfair trade practices and even the fear that we in developed countries feel about our own situation as we struggle with current reality is adding to the poverty of ambition of millions of people in Africa, Asia, south America and elsewhere.
	That is why I would like to ask the Minister today to explain DFID's thinking on some of these matters. What special consideration has been given to the global economic crisis and its effect on developing countries' economies? Is a specific plan being formulated to offer both fiscal and technical guidance in respect of the problems those in the developing world now face? Surely those fellow citizens will feel the brunt of the storm.
	It is fashionable to quote President-elect Obama and equally so to scorn those who do so, but I will end by quoting Obama—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Tom Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman would not mind, I am almost ready to wind up.
	I will end by quoting Obama quoting President Kennedy:
	"To those peoples in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required... not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."

Michael Moore: I hope that the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) will not take offence if I say that this debate has had a surreal quality to it, because that is in no way a reflection on his contribution. Again, I pay tribute to the sterling, unrivalled work that he has done in this Chamber over many years on international development and to his groundbreaking legislation, which is at the centre of today's debate. My observation about the surreal nature of the debate is based on the complexities of what we try to resolve on occasions such as this. Perhaps only in this arena could we be talking with such passion about untied aid that definitely has strings attached. Those who are new to the debate will not fully comprehend that.
	What such people will understand, and what they will have seen, are the stark television images of the past week—the contrasting images from Africa. On the one hand, we saw the despair in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and, on the other hand we saw the elation in the village of Kogelo in western Kenya at the election of Senator Obama to the presidency of the United States of America. One image was a bleak reminder of the cycle of conflict and crisis that have typified much of the development debate over generations, and the other was a celebration of the close human links between the developing world and the rich west. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we must hope that under a new American Administration those will be strengthened considerably.
	Different contributors this afternoon have made reference to the tragedy of what is going on in the DRC—up to 1.6 million people have been displaced, and there are real concerns about the 100,000 or so north of Goma who are beyond the reach of aid agencies. The situation is desperate, and I join others from across the House in hoping that the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo receives the reinforcements that have been announced today, which it urgently requires to deal with the situation, and that the diplomatic efforts are successful in restoring peace and implementing the Goma agreement.

David Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those forces will need clear rules of engagement that will allow them to shoot people who are walking around with guns? Without such rules, there will be no progress.

Michael Moore: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I understand from his colleague on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), that that has been clearly set out.

David Drew: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the problems that we face, particularly in Africa, is that, in a sense, out of sight means out of mind? What is happening in the DRC, a country I visited some years ago, is terrible, but the situation in Darfur is as bad as it ever was and it has fallen off the front pages because of events in the DRC. The west, in particular, is very bad in this regard, because it loses interest. As a result, I fear that momentum will be lost and some of the changes that were taking place in Sudan will not now happen; and next year is a particularly important one, given that elections are to take place. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my misgivings.

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman's valid point puts an extra onus on all in this House who have an interest in these matters and care all the time about them to ensure that we bring them back to the forefront of the agenda. Although Darfur has not been mentioned other than in his intervention, I hope that we might have the chance in the near future to debate the humanitarian situation there and the efforts that are being made by the Department for International Development to support the communities affected.
	The scale of what is going on in the DRC, which is fresh in our minds, is staggering. For example, 100,000 people constitute the population of the entire region of which my constituency forms a part, and to imagine every last person there being beyond help, as so many are north of Goma at the moment, is striking and worrying. I hope that as the Secretary of State did not get the opportunity to focus on that situation in his speech, the Minister who winds up the debate will be able to talk about the aid package for the DRC. We hope to see it successfully delivered on the ground in the next few weeks as the situation unfolds.
	The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill touched on the global financial crisis, and this debate takes place at a defining moment for development, with the developing world facing fundamental challenges in this fragile financial situation. The international focus has so far been on creating stability and injecting vast capital sums to secure domestic financial systems. That is the correct thing to do, but the danger is that the impact of the crisis is so great that we will overlook what is happening in developing countries.
	This weekend, leaders of the G20 will gather to tackle some of the pressing issues. The reform agenda of the Bretton Woods institutions will be central to those discussions—and not before time—although we must hope that that is not where the discussions end. Already, countries around the world are resiling from their aid commitments. The UK must help to stop that trend in its tracks. It has been made explicit this afternoon that all hon. Members on both sides of the House support the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNI in overseas development assistance. We have to push everyone else to continue in that direction and not to move backwards.

Malcolm Bruce: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that Italy is likely to take over the leadership of the G8 at a time when it has effectively dismantled its aid programme and abandoned its commitment to aspire to even half of the GDP target that others are working towards? Should the European Union take that up with Italy if it is to have the responsibility of leading the world on the issue?

Michael Moore: I agree. This country works in close partnership with Italy, and it is a great shame that it has taken those backward steps, especially as it is to take that key leadership position. It is important that we do not allow that to distract us from our global efforts towards what is, frankly speaking, only a modest target. It is only a very small amount of money.
	Anyone who doubts the scale of the challenges that we face need only cast their minds back to the debate in New York at the summit on the millennium development goals. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill was right to celebrate the optimistic elements of that summit, and I do not wish to be a naysayer. However, the MDG report by the United Nations highlighted the fact that the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day in sub-Saharan Africa is unlikely to be reduced by the target of 50 per cent. A quarter of all children in developing countries are considered to be underweight and at risk of their future being blighted by the long-term effects of under-nourishment.
	This debate is not primarily about the MDGs. The global meltdown in the financial markets almost completely overshadowed the summit at the time, but we need to bring back the issues considered to the forefront of public debate. Renewed efforts must be made to try to ensure that we regain some of the momentum that we had towards reaching those targets and our broader development goals.
	As both Front Benchers have so far indicated, there is a strong appetite among the public to try to understand our development objectives. High standards are always demanded when we spend taxpayers' money. Some people are even questioning our commitment to the level of support we give. Some do so directly, because they think we should spend the money here at home, and some do so indirectly, because they do not support the specific goals being funded. On the first point, as I said a moment ago, at the moment we offer a tiny proportion of our wealth as a country. On the second, I do not believe that anybody should tolerate corruption and we must be rigorous in tackling it.
	Like the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), I hope that at some point we can have some clear answers from the Government about the two different reports this year that have set out some criticisms of the Department. I hope that the Department will take them as challenges to improve. On balance, I think we would all accept that DFID always seeks to tackle overseas development and to eradicate corruption, but it would be presenting a false picture if we were to suggest that there was not still a major problem.
	In our debates, we often focus on how much assistance we give. Equally, we know the costs of delivering development assistance in an inefficient or ineffective way. There are real perils if we turn a blind eye to corruption. Progress might indeed be grindingly slow, but the debate about the "How?" rather than just the "How much?" of international development is not new. The Paris declaration, followed up in Accra a few months ago, put the spotlight on that. The subheading of the declaration in 2005 illustrated the size of the challenge facing donors and recipients. Seeking to increase the effectiveness of our aid, the signatories highlighted their commitment to promoting ownership, harmonisation, alignment, results and mutual accountability. Transparency is the theme that runs through each of those ideas.
	At Paris, both donors and recipients committed to a range of improvements to the respective aid management and disbursement systems, which ranged from increased use of local procurement systems by donors to broad overhauls of budgetary and public financial management systems on the part of recipient states.
	The Accra conference this year offered the international community a second opportunity to iterate its commitment to positive action on improving the effectiveness of aid and assessing progress towards a series of medium-term goals outlined in Paris that are due to be achieved in less than two years' time. What emerged from Accra was a picture of partial successes and piecemeal progress towards the 2010 goals. Although the Accra agenda for action welcomed the improvements that we have seen in areas such as the co-ordination of donor funding, it outlined the need for urgent action on country ownership, increased efforts to build more inclusive partnerships for development and a more results-oriented and accountable approach to aid, all to help to ensure that we meet our commitments on aid effectiveness within the agreed time frame.
	The Secretary of State spent some time talking about the international aid transparency initiative, as we would expect. The benefits of transparency within the development process are hardly controversial. However, I would like to understand the extent to which the new initiative offers something different and adds value to what already exists. Some measures repeat commitments that have already been made by the signatories of the high-level conference in Accra.
	For instance, the commitment of the signatories to the new initiative to provide more reliable and detailed information about intended future aid does not appear to differ from the commitment set out in the agenda for action to provide full and timely information on aid commitments and actual disbursements. The initiative's commitment to be transparent about the conditions attached to aid similarly differs little from the Accra commitment regularly to make public all conditions attached to aid disbursements. Any new initiative is welcome, and I appreciate that that initiative was as much as anything probably born out of frustration at the pace at which change happened, but the Government will have to make a much stronger case about what it is adding that is different.
	In previous exchanges, we have also explored the extractive industries transparency initiative. Hon Members have rightly mentioned the many different economic factors that contribute to conflicts in places such as the DRC. In particular, they have pointed to the impact that the extractive industries and the illicit trade in such commodities have in generating revenue for militias and others.
	We strongly support the aims of the EITI, which has been endorsed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, but its impact has been too limited so far. As Global Witness has said:
	"The EITI is a groundbreaking effort to remedy the lack of transparency and enable better public oversight of these industries. But six years after its launch the EITI remains a promising but highly fragile initiative."
	We have yet to see any country complete the implementation process officially, so the greater transparency that has been promised is nowhere near as full as we would hope.
	A recent report from the Bank Information Centre has shown how the World Bank and the IMF are falling short in promoting and implementing the EITI. If even those bodies, which are supposed to protect the interests of vulnerable countries, are failing on this issue, it is hard to see why the industries themselves should be performing any better.
	The initiative is approaching a "crunch" moment between now and March 2010, when candidate countries must complete the process to become EITI compliant. That process will need enormous support and encouragement from Britain, which is the initiative's founder and oldest supporter. I hope that the Minister will set out the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that candidate countries receive all the support that they need to make progress towards EITI compliance on time. In addition, what steps are the Government taking to support civil society groups in those countries, so that they can participate freely and actively in the moves towards compliance?
	Critical producers and importers such as India, China and Russia are not involved with the EITI, and other countries think it is some kind of developed-world plot to undermine their industry. Surely that is where a lot more of our efforts need to be focused, at the same time as we ensure that our own house is in order.
	We in this country must lead by example if we are to reach the objectives that we have set for the development assistance that we give, and for the countries that we support. One area where we have yet to show that lead is that of tax transparency. The international community will gather in Doha later this month, as the Secretary of State noted, to take the next steps towards financing the gaps in international development. We support the Government's agenda in that respect, but  The Observer reported recently that the UK seems to be lobbying to remove paragraph 10 from the draft Doha outcome document.
	The offending paragraph states:
	"We will strengthen efforts to increase tax revenues through more effective tax collection and modernisation of tax legislation including through simplification of the tax system, broadening of the tax base and strongly combating tax evasion. To support individual country efforts in these areas, it will be important to enhance international cooperation in tax matters and broaden participation in the development of international tax norms and rules. We will consider strengthening the UN Committee of Experts on International Cooperation on Tax Matters by upgrading it to an intergovernmental body."
	According to  The Observer, the Treasury is blocking the whole paragraph and a spokesman was quoted as saying:
	"The UK makes an active contribution to the existing UN tax committee. It is not clear that an upgrade to the existing committee...would deliver any additional benefit."
	I want to know whether the newspaper is correct. If it is, how on earth have we found ourselves in the position of lobbying against something that looks pretty inoffensive and is perhaps just basic common sense? Indeed, should we not be actively lobbying for the inclusion of that paragraph? I hope we can get reassurance on that, because if we do not show a lead on the issue, how can we expect to be followed on much of our agenda?
	All of us in the House support wealth creation as a crucial element of long-term sustainable development. Private companies have an absolutely fundamental role to play in that, but it would undermine support for a fundamental tool of international development if we sent out any signals that we were less than wholly committed to appropriate tax behaviour.
	The Government have taken a welcome lead on many aspects of transparency. They are open about their own expenditure, in large part as a result of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006, introduced by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, which has been referred to a few times. However, there is one area where I remain perplexed about the apparent reluctance of DFID to ensure the transparency of its activities.
	CDC is a significant player in the world of development investment. It invests public money in companies in the developing world. Indeed, its spending contributes directly towards the UK's development spending figures, and forms part of our progress towards the UN 0.7 per cent. official development assistance commitment. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), will be aware that I have raised various issues relating to the accounts of CDC's subsidiary companies and its investment funds in recent months. There is a real issue there to do with tax transparency. Why is CDC using tax structures to shelter its investment?
	Christian Aid recently produced an important report entitled "Death and taxes: the true toll of tax dodging". It quoted a senior adviser to the Tax Justice Network, who said that the tax rates enjoyed by CDC
	"are just about the lowest I have ever seen. They make the most advanced tax planners look like amateurs.
	They are the result of statutory tax exemption for CDC in the UK and negotiated exemptions overseas. It sets the most appalling precedent that companies investing in developing countries should not expect to pay tax."
	I understand the exemption from UK tax, as it allows the re-investment of profits earned on investments overseas; what I do not get is the avoidance of tax elsewhere. A cynic might wonder whether a public body should strictly follow the best practice of the private equity world. Someone even more cynical might wonder whether the agenda is to position CDC in a way that makes future privatisation look as attractive as possible. The Department has to rethink the guidance that it gives to CDC. There was very little about that in the new investment guide, policy and code published just last week. The issue is undermining Britain's position as a leader on such issues. I hope that we will see a change of policy.
	Amid all the current world crises we must not forget the developing world. We must not lose sight of the broader battles to achieve the millennium development goals. Transparency is a fundamental issue at the heart of every aspect of our debates. If we are to take a lead, we must also set an example. Although the Government have much to take credit for, they still have a great deal of scope for improvement.

David Davies: Like some of the previous speakers, I have visited Uganda with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on a cross-party visit. Like others speakers, I came back with vivid memories of the country. Yes, there was an enormous amount of poverty there, which I will come to in a moment, but surprisingly, in parts of Kampala, and on the road between the airport and the capital city, there were obvious examples of large amounts of wealth. One day, a number of us flew to a refugee camp in the Gulu province. As has been mentioned, we sat around a mud hut where there were people suffering the effects of malnutrition. There was very little food, and people were getting what they could from the UN agencies. People faced the constant threat of being robbed or raped at gunpoint by the Lord's Resistance Army and other terrorist organisations. There was something particularly surprising about that scene because when one sees such images on the television, one naturally assumes that they are of refugee camps out in the middle of nowhere, but just a few miles down the road, we were able to drive into a fully functioning town with paved roads, its own radio station, and a bustling market. We were treated to a banquet, which all the local dignitaries attended, at which we discussed the fact that not enough aid was getting through and that there was not enough transparency.
	Another day, back in Kampala, we were treated to an official dinner by the Ugandan Government—another great big banquet, with course after course in the Sheraton or perhaps the Hilton. Once again, we nodded over coffee and ice cream, and agreed that there was not enough aid coming through to African countries, and that there was not enough transparency. Afterwards, I wandered outside for some reason, and I saw a long line of sleek, black Mercedes-Benz with chauffeurs. Doubtless, if I had been able to go over and talk to them—they were there to collect Members of Parliament and Ministers who attended the dinner—and if they were minded to exchange small-talk, they, too, would have agreed that there was not enough aid coming through to central Africa and that there was not enough transparency.
	I wanted to discuss those issues with DFID in Uganda, and I was looking forward to meeting its officials when we visited the British embassy, but there was no sign of DFID there. The British embassy has been heavily upgraded in Uganda, as I am sure many other embassies in that part of Africa have been. Millions of pounds have been spent on it, because it is a huge security risk and terrorist target. It is quite right that the money has been spent, but there was no sign of DFID in the embassy. It did not like being there, and wanted to be elsewhere, so it had rooms on the other side of Kampala in a luxury suite of offices—a first-world building in a third-world country for which, I am sure, the British taxpayer paid first-world prices. I looked forward to speaking to the head of DFID in Uganda and asking him about transparency and why we were not saving money by locating the Department in the British embassy. However, I could not do so, because he was busy doing something else. He was doing important things—too important to speak to a cross-party group of Members of Parliament representing the taxpayers who paid his salary. We were not told what he was doing, but it was made quite clear to us by his deputy that our appearance in Kampala was somewhat inconvenient. Perhaps the Minister will pass on our apologies for troubling them when he next visits the place. However, I never found out much when I was in Uganda.

Ivan Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the offence he has caused to the remarkable men and women who work in incredibly difficult circumstances, not usually motivated by financial or material gain, often risking their lives on behalf of this country? Will he apologise for giving a misleading, out-of-context impression about the contribution of our amazing staff on the ground in many of the most challenging countries of the world?

David Davies: No. If the Minister cares to look at what I just said, I made a factual comment.  [ Interruption. ] Hang on, will the Minister listen to me for a moment? I made a factual comment about the head of DFID in Uganda who was not able to see us on a cross-party visit with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in 2006. If he wants to check his facts, I am more than happy for him to do so. What I am giving is a factual statement, and I am not making any comment about DFID members of staff in other parts of the world. The Minister had better check the record, and perhaps he will apologise to me when he has done so and realises that his comments were a complete misrepresentation of what I said. I do not believe, however, that members of DFID are risking their lives in Kampala. They would do so if they went to northern Uganda and Gulu province, but they are based in a first-world office block in Kampala. No doubt, they go to that province on occasion, but it is not where they are based, and Kampala is not a particularly dangerous place. If it was, I was risking my life, along with other Members of Parliament, many of them in the Chamber today, who have been there.
	My experience of DFID led me to table a few parliamentary questions. One of the first was about the number of offices that it had. Now, I shall give the Minister credit for one thing, which is that DFID's mission statement, when compared with most Departments', is—surprisingly—absolutely clear and, I might add, a refreshing change. Its website states that DFID is all about handling Britain's aid to the world's poorest countries, so I looked through the list of places where DFID has offices, and I was surprised to find that among the places that are presumably considered poor are Paris, Vienna, Geneva and Brussels. The United States of America obviously suffers from a great deal of poverty, because it has two DFID offices, one in Washington and one in New York.
	I should like to know from the Minister why we have a base in sunny Barbados, where the average GDP is $19,000 per head. It also benefits from the munificence of the British taxpayers and the presence of a DFID office, which, the website states, is there to draw up regional development plans. No doubt if any staff take offence at my speech, they will demand that I come over and see how hard they are working. I might be available around about Christmas time, if the Minister wants to sanction that one.
	There are other offices about which I have questions, and other Members have already mentioned some. Those offices are located in cities in Brazil, South Africa, Thailand and Russia. Poverty exists in all those countries; there is no doubt about it, but those countries also have huge amounts of wealth. They are not really the poorest of the poor, but countries where, if there were a will, something could be done about the existing poverty. In the case of Russia in particular, I find it extraordinary that, on the one hand, we make bellicose statements to its Government about what they have done in South Ossetia, even though it now appears that the whole thing was started by another country, while, on the other, we hand out aid to them. It seems to be a remarkable contradiction. Yes, people are dying of tuberculosis in India, and that is an absolute tragedy, but there are people dying of starvation in British hospitals, and that is also an absolute tragedy.
	The fact is that we should send our aid to countries where we can make a difference. Why on earth, therefore, do we bother to send millions of pounds in aid to China, for heaven's sake? China is likely to overtake America as one of the world's great superpowers over the next few decades; it is spending millions of pounds on its space programme and on its nuclear weapons; it has just announced that it is going to try to build a bigger navy than America's; and, irony of ironies, we saw plenty of evidence of China's own aid programme in Uganda, where it is building Government offices. We give money to the Chinese, and the Chinese give their money to African nations, securing all sorts of concessions in return. The idea that in 20 or 30 years' time, the Chinese, as one of the world's pre-eminent superpowers, will look back and think, "Oh, we'll treat the British slightly differently because they gave us what in relative terms was a small amount of money," just shows the left-wing, colonial and patronising attitude that is all too prevalent in some parts of the Government and, dare I say it, in Departments. They think that because we give out relatively small amounts of money, somebody is going to care or remember in a few decades' time. It is complete and utter naiveté, and as someone who has a Chinese family, I can assure the House that the Chinese must be laughing up their sleeves at it.
	One of my basic concerns is that we are spending a vast amount of money paying first-world salaries and first-world rents for offices in countries throughout the world. The parliamentary answer that I have before me is about two years old, but it is simply a list of all our DFID offices. I totted them up, and there were about 80.

Ivan Lewis: rose—

David Davies: I am more than happy to give way to the Minister. Perhaps he could try to be more polite when he makes his point this time.

Ivan Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even his own party's Front-Bench spokesman refers constantly to DFID being a world leader in development? For all the legitimate questions that the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) raises about the direction of policy, that is a point that his own Front-Bench spokesperson—from the shadow Cabinet—makes time and again. Will the hon. Gentleman apologise for being so offensive about the role of DFID front-line staff? I do not mind what he says about me.

David Davies: I point out to the Minister that this is an opportunity for me to put questions to him through the Chair; if I want to raise issues with a Front-Bench spokesman, I can do that in a different way. I do not mind how offensive the Minister is to me. I meet people far more offensive than him every Friday night when I work as a special constable, although he is coming close in some respects. However, as a Minister of the Government, he might care to reflect on the fact that we are allowed to express ourselves and raise criticisms in this place. I am surprised that he finds that so offensive.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I make an appeal for the debate to return to a more even tenor. The personal aspects on both sides are jarring to the general theme of the afternoon.

David Davies: I am more than happy to return to the subject of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that I was trying to make—I am sorry if the Minister finds it offensive—is that DFID has a large number of offices and staff, and a limited budget. We can argue all day about whether that budget should increase, but we should all agree that it should be spent as wisely as possible. I am suggesting that rather than having 80 offices all around the world in places such as Paris, Geneva and Brussels, we concentrate on a dozen or two dozen of the very poorest countries in the world, perhaps those with previous links to Britain. We should concentrate as many of our efforts as possible on reducing the overheads and spending the money—whatever the budget—on those who need it.

Ivan Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this context the most important thing that this country can do, apart from being a donor country, is to influence international institutions and other donors so that they step up to the mark and make the right decisions on international development? That is why we need offices where the international institutions are located. It is important and in our national interest that we should lead on influencing development policy across the developing world.

David Davies: The Minister overlooks the fact that that is the role of embassies and the Foreign Office. Earlier, he made it clear that he condemned the idea of giving out foreign aid with strings attached about how Governments should run themselves. He needs to make up his mind about his own policy; he has contradicted himself throughout this debate. If we give out money with no strings attached, we should not concentrate on foreign policy at all but simply make sure that the money goes to those who need it most.
	I put it to the Minister, with respect and courtesy, that we would do far more if we concentrated on 12 or 20 of the poorest countries in the world, rather than trying to spread ourselves thinly throughout the world and making what in many cases will be a very small difference. The Minister gets angry when anyone criticises his Department, but I tell him that the role of a Member of Parliament, who is elected by taxpayers, is to ask difficult questions about how Government money is spent. I have a concern about the attitude of some DFID members of staff—not least because of my own experiences, but also because of the experiences of constituents.
	I recently met a retired eye surgeon from Abergavenny. Over the years, he had done some work in Ethiopia. Having retired, he wanted to work for free. This was not some naive 21-year-old just out of university knocking on the door and asking to work on an aid programme, but a retired eye surgeon who wanted to give up his time for free and start a project training people to undertake basic surgery to enable people with certain eye diseases to see again. He told me that he got no help whatever from DFID and was treated as something of an inconvenience. The very idea that Government money could be given to an individual, even one with enormous skills and expertise, to do what the mission statement says the Department is all about, was simply incomprehensible to the officials involved. I believe the gentleman concerned because he is highly respected and because he went out and set up the charity himself. He is now training people in Ethiopia to go out and give people their sight back. In other words, he is exactly the sort of person whom we should be supporting but were not able to—presumably because people were busy drawing up action plans instead of giving practical help.
	My points are that we are spread too thinly across the world and that we are in many of the wrong places. Many of the countries in which we are present are perfectly able to help themselves if they wish to and our presence will not make any difference to their foreign policy over the next few decades. If we concentrated our efforts on 12 or 20 of the poorest of the poor countries of the world, we could make a significant difference to people's lives.

Malcolm Bruce: I certainly do not intend to try to follow that pub rant from the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), which seems to be considerably at odds with the views of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and gives a degree of discomfort to the idea that we have a modern, reformed, liberal-minded Conservative party that wants to engage in these issues. Of course, there is an entirely reasonable debate to be had about how DFID should deploy its staff and its resources and in how many countries, and what its priorities are. My Committee, the International Development Committee, regards its prime function as to call the Department to account, challenge it on its policies and make constructive recommendations, which I hope that we do.
	Transparency is one of those issues that is very easy to talk about and a lot more difficult to deliver. It is not always possible to turn every expenditure of cash into a measurable result, but we must try to do it, as far as possible, for exactly the reasons that have been stated—to reassure taxpayers at home that the money is being spent effectively to achieve the objectives and to reassure people in the countries on the receiving end that their Governments are using the money to good effect.
	As I understand it, a significant aspect of providing direct budget support is to try to enable the developing country to build up the capacity to control its own budget and expenditure and to deliver services, ultimately to the point at which the revenues that are generated allow the development support to be phased out and withdrawn. Whenever my Committee and I visit DFID offices in various countries, we always ask the staff to what extent their budget is being distributed under direct budget support, and what engagement they have with the people with whom they are working in government to ensure that as far as possible—allowing for the fact that it is their choice, not ours, what the money is delivered for—it is being spent properly. That is a difficult ask, and the situation needs to be consistently and constantly monitored and improved. Several of the Government's initiatives represent at least an attempt to put in place processes and procedures that will improve the quality of that process. I do not think that they will be offended if I say that we have some way to go, but that is not necessarily to suggest that we are doing the wrong things.
	The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield expressed concern about some of the countries that are receiving direct budget support and suggested that our Committee might investigate that, and we are happy to discuss whether and how we might do so in future. I assure him that we continually discuss and ask about direct budget support. We are going to visit Kenya and Tanzania in pursuit of our inquiry into sustainable development in a changing climate, but also with an awareness that Tanzania is the largest recipient of direct budget support in Africa. The Committee will want to ask about that and try to provide reassurance, which I hope might be helpful to the Department as well.
	The new Administration in the United States should not be lost sight of in this context. The US Congress and the present Administration have argued that they do not approve of direct budget support and will not give it. It is sometimes argued that they are hiding behind the idea that congressional rules will not allow it, but Congress has the capacity to change its rules. It has been suggested that under the new Administration the United States might be willing to move, albeit gently, towards giving direct budget support in partnership and co-ordination with other donors, and we must not say anything that deters them from doing that. We should not say that it is fundamentally wrong, only that it is challenging and that we must ensure that it is effectively delivered.
	Indeed, it is in that context that co-ordination among donors is important. If we can get all the European donors, the United States, Canada and perhaps even Japan to agree to a set of rules, or even to channel aid through the same vehicles, as we are trying to do in Afghanistan, there will be a much greater chance of delivering better accountability, better transparency and better quality aid, and we will do so in such a way that the country on the receiving end will have the capacity to absorb aid more effectively.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Chairman of the Select Committee make two particular inquiries about direct budgetary support transparency? First, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) mentioned substitution, whereby giving aid to a country allows their leaders to spend money on jets, for example, which is undesirable. Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman examine how much money is getting to the projects it is supposed to support on the ground, rather than being creamed off in corruption at the centre?

Malcolm Bruce: I am perfectly happy to do that, but I can also assure the hon. Gentleman that those are the sort of questions that we have asked. On Uganda, about which questions have been raised, it is interesting that the Ugandan Government had an agreement with the community about money being spent on education in which they undertook to nail on the school door a breakdown of the budget allocated, where it was coming from and how it would be spent so that the community could monitor the situation.
	That brings me to my second point: we have to develop countries' capacity to monitor their own expenditure effectively. That means working with Parliaments and with civic society. When we have a debate about ownership of aid and development by developing countries, we have to understand clearly that we are talking about ownership not only by the Government, but as far as possible, by the people. We need to give Parliaments information that allows them to call their Governments to account, and work with civic society to challenge MPs and inform the public. That is probably the best defence against money being misappropriated, although we have to accept that in many cases it will take many years for a strong and sophisticated capacity of that sort to develop.
	It has sometimes been argued that there is a sort of perverse, inverse relationship between aid and development. Professor Collier calls it the Dutch disease; he asserts that in some cases, the more aid a country is given, the less responsive it is—the poorer it gets, in other words. His argument is that the purchase of local currency creates a drain, which cannot be offset if there is no strong economy. To counter that, I would say that his is an argument for ensuring that the aid is of high quality and is well targeted, not an argument for not giving the aid.

Tom Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. On Uganda, I remind him that during the visit I mentioned earlier, we had the opportunity to meet the Minister of Finance. He opened the books, and one of the most glaring aspects of what he told us was debt repayment. It was absolutely astonishing. We found that developed countries were already benefiting a great deal from the poorest countries in the world, and given the right hon. Gentleman's experience, I am sure that he would want to acknowledge the progress that we have made in that field.

Malcolm Bruce: I do. It is always difficult when one gets drawn into a detailed debate about an individual country, because of the complexity within. It is absolutely true that debt repayment, and in some cases the liquidation of that debt, has been a key part of the process. At the end of the day, it is important that future arrangements do not sink into that sort of relationship. Countries should be able to borrow, but on their own terms, not unfair terms, and with debts that can be properly serviced, not what might be called odious debt. We must avoid returning to that situation.
	Two or three topical concerns have already been raised, but one has not been, and it is one on which I suspect the Minister cannot make any immediate comment. I was somewhat horrified, just before I came into the Chamber, to see John Ging being interviewed live from Gaza on BBC News 24, saying that 750,000 people there are desperately in need of food aid from the United Nations Works and Relief Agency, and that they have had no supplies delivered since yesterday. He says that the food is on the Israeli side of the border and that the Israelis are refusing to allow it to pass, which is contrary to their international obligations and the law, which permits humanitarian relief.
	I hope that the Under-Secretary will at least use his good offices to ensure that the UK applies appropriate pressure so that the food gets through. Those who need it are mostly destitute women and children and unemployed men, who have no other form of income in a small territory where there is no other food to be had. That is not usually the case—even in the poorest countries, it is amazing how food can sometimes be obtained. However, given that Gaza is shut in, the problem is serious.
	Yesterday, members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State about the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We did not get a clear answer—he undertook to write to us—about the reason for the extent of the delay in reaching some people, or even identifying them. It was disturbing to read about and see television pictures of people who had had no food for two or three days, and sometimes up to six days. Clearly, the consequences do not require stressing in the Chamber.

Andrew Mitchell: The problem is that people are not fleeing to semi-established or established camps. They are fleeing, in the clothes that they stand up in, into a most inhospitable jungle territory. That is why it is taking so long to get desperately needed support to those who are suffering.

Malcolm Bruce: I understand, and I am grateful for that intervention. I am simply trying to say that we can imagine the consequences if we cannot reach those people soon.
	Several of us attended the round-table briefing at the Foreign Office this morning about Afghanistan, which brought us up to date. The results of a BBC poll, based on a stark and rather silly question, were published yesterday and showed that 68 per cent. of the British people wanted our troops to be withdrawn within a year. The question did not provide any context, but revealed a problem. Liberal Democrat Members—and, I believe, most Members—believe that engagement with Afghanistan is necessary. It is in the interests of British security and right for the people of Afghanistan, even if it is a difficult and challenging place to be. There are concerns about the way in which we communicate that.
	It is understandable, given that the United Kingdom's military commitment is in Helmand and that significant numbers of men and women in our armed forces are dying in that engagement, that the British people question the reason for putting our troops in harm's way to that extent in such a far-away place. That tends to lead to an exclusive focus on what happens in Helmand, and does not take into account the fact that Afghanistan is a substantial country, and that not everywhere is in the same position as Helmand. Indeed, approximately 75 to 80 per cent. of British aid and development expenditure happens in other parts of the country through the national Government to help achieve important development objectives, such as getting children, including more than 2 million girls, back into school, and impressively providing at least basic health care throughout the country. Other objectives include improving communications and roads and are mostly financed by the United States. In other words, the picture is not all negative and bad.
	The nature of society in Afghanistan means that it has never had a unified Government and bureaucracy running the entire country. It has always been run through some form of agency—local leaders, warlords, tribal chiefs and so on. It is therefore not surprising that that continues to happen to some extent. It does not mean that the country is not being governed, that state money is not being properly spent or that services are not reaching the people. However, as our Committee found when we visited, the people of Afghanistan are all too often unaware of what is happening. It is simple for a local governor to pretend that all the largesse—it is not much largesse; we are considering a very poor country—is somehow his creation rather than something that has come from the central Government. Similarly, central Government want to claim the credit, rather than admit that the help comes from the international community.
	That is a dilemma. It is a problem if we cannot win the Afghan people's hearts and minds and show them that we are in a genuine partnership—a partnership between the international community and the people, to try to achieve the stability and ability to develop that they want, and between the people of our country and Afghanistan to enable it to build up a viable state.
	That is a challenge for us, but we all have a responsibility to fulfil it, at least so that the great sacrifices of our forces will have been made not in vain or for a failed project, but for one that, however difficult, might ultimately be achieved. I suggest—I say this with the Secretary of State in his place once more—that there is scope for more explanation of the interaction between the military and DFID in Afghanistan and of how things work. Those of us who are engaged in the debate understand that, but even in the House and certainly among the wider public, there is a lack of understanding about how those aspects interact. There is a form of transparency that is not about just money, but about understanding aims and objectives and what is happening.
	The Secretary of State quite understandably mentioned the undertakings that were made in Accra and has probably read, as I have, Simon Maxwell's blog. Having honestly said that he was not sure what Accra was all about when he went, Simon Maxwell paid tribute to the Secretary of State for the energy that he had expended in trying to secure an agreement that contained real commitments, rather than just platitudinous statements, which is what people told the Committee they feared it would contain when we visited earlier in the year. I am happy to share that acknowledgment. As Simon Maxwell also said, it is fine to get a lot of countries signing up to a big commitment, but people will want to see what that means in terms of ownership and buy-in.
	That leads me back—I am happy to conclude on this point—to the relationship between the donors and the developing countries and the people living there. The reason why DFID was created as a distinct Department was to separate foreign policy from development and to focus on poverty reduction, so that development policy would not be compromised by being an instrument of foreign policy or by commercial interests. That has been a success, both in persuading the British people that our aid programme is worthy of support and in determining our approach, which has helped DFID to achieve a position of leadership throughout the world.
	I must also echo what the Under-Secretary said. The entire staff of DFID comprise about 2,500 people, which includes foreign nationals employed in overseas offices. That core—the UK part of it, at least—is under the same strictures of staff reduction as staff in other Departments are. That is a challenge for the Department and there is no doubt a shortage of expertise. There are ways around the problem, ingenious or not, that need to be pursued. There are also questions about how one might prioritise—in terms not only of money, but of staff—what we do and do not do, both sectorally and in individual countries.
	Although I did not take too much to the style of the speech that the hon. Member for Monmouth made, it is always perfectly possible to conduct a proper review of the number of countries we engage in and how effectively we do so, although I understand that a significant number of offices have been closed this year.

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the constraints on numbers that operate across Whitehall, including DFID. Let me reiterate that we think it is absolutely absurd that DFID staffing figures are being restricted at a time when the budget is rising significantly. The staffing level should be set to meet that rising budget, not the reverse.

Malcolm Bruce: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The Committee has not completed its report this year, but we certainly acknowledge the pressures and have expressed our concerns. The permanent secretary is obviously constrained by the rules across Government, but she conceded that the Department was struggling. That is something that we should take to heart.
	I want to pick up the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the website, which I believe has some merit, and to ask the Department to consider it. Perhaps the Secretary of State could give some thought to the exact purpose of the website. Whenever our Committee visits countries in which we have an engaged programme, we visit DFID. I am sure that other Committees visit their relevant Departments. We usually get an extremely thorough, detailed briefing from the DFID office, showing what is being spent, what the priorities are, the breakdown, and an honest question-and-answer session. A lot of that information could be in the public domain. It would help if we could go to the website and find out exactly what the budget is and what the priorities are in more detail and in a more up-to-date way. That would make the website more interactively beneficial and the Department more transparent. It could address some of the concerns: it is not that people are against what is being done; they just do not know what is being done, which makes them either suspicious or inclined to ask questions. Will the Secretary of State consider whether more could be done to make the information more accessible and transparent?
	The Committee's report looked at how we as a country and the international donor community could work more effectively together. It became clear in that process that how effectively we can work depends on whom we are working with. The Committee, in choosing which of our European partners to have a dialogue with, made a journey from Rome to Berlin to Copenhagen and then, via video link, to Stockholm. Not to put too fine a point on it, I am glad that we did it in that order, because the reverse process would have been deeply depressing.
	The reality, as far as I can see, is that the Italians have pretty well opted out of supporting the commitment to international aid and development. The previous Italian Government were in the process of setting up their own development agency; the present Italian Government have abandoned it. I am grateful that they are continuing to support the multi-national organisations, but that is probably about saving face among their peers. They support the Rome-based institutions but, beyond that, there is very little commitment.
	I do not want to do a qualitative analysis, but there is a group of countries that we, the Foreign Office and DFID call the northern liberals, and which the Scandinavian countries refer to as the Nordic-plus countries—basically, the Scandinavian countries, plus the Netherlands, the UK and Ireland. We are definitely like-minded and work together. Doing so can have a huge impact in driving the right kind of development. By that, I mean development that is designed to reduce poverty, to give poor people in developing countries a degree of ownership and control over the quality of aid and development, and to help them to call their Governments to account. In that way, they can be part of the process of lifting themselves out of poverty and achieving the success and development that they have been denied for so long, but that they richly deserve.

Stephen Crabb: This is an important debate and there is not much time left, so I shall try not to go over the ground that other hon. Members have covered.
	It was slightly regrettable that the Secretary of State injected a rather partisan tone into his contribution. Under his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), we had some really good international development debates in the Chamber. There was space for disagreement about how to achieve objectives, but there was a large measure of cross-party agreement on the commitment to reducing poverty. We lost a lot of time earlier in the debate with a rather artificial quarrel that was picked by Labour Members about our commitment—or our alleged lack of commitment—to tackling poverty in the world's poorest countries.
	There are two backdrops to the debate, the first of which is the ongoing effort to achieve greater transparency on international aid. Tribute has been paid to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), who introduced a private Member's Bill on the matter that made strides in that direction. However, the agenda clearly has a long way to run to establish good linkage between, on the one hand, the high-level rhetoric that we use in the Chamber about development, the commitment to tackling poverty around the world, and the nature of our interventions and assistance, and, on the other hand, the hard outcomes such as the lives saved, the children educated, and all the things that members of the public would understand.
	The second backdrop is the current economic crisis, which is not just a crisis for the developed world, but very much for the developing world, too. Other Members may not share my experience, but I am no longer receiving letters or e-mails from constituents urging me to do more to tackle global poverty. When I was elected three and a half years ago, I was flooded with postcards, campaign letters and e-mails as part of the "Make Poverty History" campaign. The agenda has moved on, so where we agree on the promise to give 0.7 per cent. of our gross national income in overseas assistance and to do more to tackle global poverty, it is now incumbent on us to remake the case for more and better aid.
	There is still a cross-party consensus on this issue, but the mood of the public has changed discernibly and understandably, at a time when many of my constituents are fearful of losing their jobs, when many jobs are being lost up and down the country and when people are having their homes repossessed. Quite rightly, their first thoughts and concerns are about their immediate livelihoods. There remains a huge amount of public good will and residual support for doing more to tackle global poverty, but it is understandable that people's immediate concerns have moved on. We have to remake the case, as I said, for this rather large and quick ramping up of overseas aid spending that the Secretary of State has announced.
	Let me deal briefly with a couple of other points. On aid to China and India, if hon. Members of any party choose to question whether continuing our overseas aid programmes to those countries is the best use of our resources, particularly given that they are both making big strides towards reaching middle-income status, that does not necessarily imply that they are any less committed to tackling global poverty. It is arrogant, however, to believe that the £40 million or £50 million of overseas aid that we give to China each year makes a jot of difference to the country's progress towards reducing poverty. Its success in doing so is almost all down to the remarkable economic growth rates that the country has achieved.
	I do not agree that we should cut our aid programme to India, on the other hand, because the country still has the world's largest concentration of poor people, and a third of the poorest. We will need a substantial programme in India for some time to come. We can still ask about the nature of our programme and whether enough goes to support judicial or police effectiveness, for example, which might do more to reduce the propensity towards communal violence that we saw this summer when the Christian community was attacked in Orissa state. Those sort of measures might help to further India's trajectory of growth and rising prosperity, but I do not think that large-scale poverty reduction programmes funded by ourselves will be what does it for a country the size of India.
	I want to conclude with some points about Zimbabwe. In last week's International Development questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) asked about aid to Zimbabwe, and the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) replied:
	"The aid that we give to Zimbabwe goes directly to the United Nations and does not go through any governmental organisations within Zimbabwe."—[ Official Report, 5 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 238.]
	He and Ministers before him have gone to great lengths to demonstrate to the House and the public that we have not supported Mugabe's regime with overseas aid. However, the answer he provided to my hon. Friend did not paint quite the whole picture. He tried to maintain that our aid does not go through any of the Zimbabwe governmental organisations, but the global fund—a multilateral initiative to which we are a major donor; we have some leverage over its policy—is about to make a very substantial contribution to Zimbabwe. It is going to be deposited directly in the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, which is controlled by one of Mugabe's henchmen. It is entirely legitimate to raise that issue in the context of wanting greater transparency about the aid we give to that country. I hope that when the Minister concludes the debate he will return to this point and clarify whether he is satisfied that an adequate assessment has been made of the risk attached to this considerable sum of money, which the Government of Zimbabwe will shortly receive.

Daniel Kawczynski: Holding the Government to account is the job and the responsibility of us Opposition Members. It is also our duty. Scrutinising overseas aid effectiveness today, given the economic crisis that we are experiencing in our own country, is therefore of paramount importance.
	I am helping many of my constituents whose homes are being repossessed or who are losing their jobs. I am fighting to save rural primary schools, and, on a regular basis, fighting to obtain life-saving drugs for many of my constituents. We all support international aid for the poorest countries, but, given the constraints that our country faces, it is important for us to scrutinise the Government on how the money is spent and to whom it goes.
	What I have seen today has shocked me and caused me genuine concern. I refer to the arrogance of the Government. After 10 years in power, they have become truly arrogant. That could be seen in the way in which they have behaved during the debate. My hon. Friends and I have tried to raise a number of important issues, but in my three and a half years as a Member of Parliament I have never seen a Minister behave as the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) has behaved today. The constant laughter sounds like someone strangling a cat; it is a very strange laugh. I have never seen any behaviour like that. I feel like showing it on my website so that people can see the reaction of this Minister when we are raising very, very important issues. I worry about the credibility of the Chamber when Ministers of the Crown behave in such an appalling, shocking way. He demeans not only himself but the entire Chamber and our parliamentary process.

Jane Kennedy: Silly!

Daniel Kawczynski: Silly it may be, but we live in a democracy, and I am entitled to my views.

Eric Joyce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Daniel Kawczynski: I will not give way. I have very little time left because of the amount of time taken by the Secretary of State and other Members.
	The Secretary of State implied—he almost agreed—that we were giving aid to China to try to influence that country. That is simply wrong. Whatever happened to Robin Cook's ethical foreign policy? China has the fastest-growing economy in the world. Its expenditure on arms is the second largest in the world. It has a major space project and a huge, thriving economy. Why we are giving money to China at a time when our own constituents are suffering—at a time when our own constituents are not receiving life-saving medical treatment and operations—is simply beyond me.
	India has the largest number of billionaires in the world. It has nuclear weapons, and is experiencing huge economic expansion. Moreover, many Indian companies are currently buying up United Kingdom companies.
	Finally, as I mentioned in an intervention, there is Russia, a country which has recently invaded Georgia—a helpless, defenceless country—which has $500 billion in reserves, and which is building up one of the world's great military powers. The fact that we are giving aid to Russia is simply unacceptable. When I tell my constituents that we are still giving aid to Russia, they look at me in bewilderment. They simply do not understand how we as a country can afford to do that. As I have said before, our country is borrowing £40 billion this year alone just to keep our budget afloat.
	In a very long speech, the Secretary of State did not refer to the European Union once. A huge amount of British taxpayers' money is channelled through the EU. How do we scrutinise that aid and its effectiveness? The EU is notorious for mishandling grants and aid: its accounts have not been signed off for 13 years.

Nicholas Winterton: It is 14 years now.

Daniel Kawczynski: My hon. Friend has rightly corrected me: it is 14 years.
	What is the Minister going to do? How does he propose to explain to our citizens how this money is spent? Surely our citizens deserve to be briefed in a far better way about the transparency of the EU, and about how it spends British taxpayers' money abroad. I have no doubt that some of the work that the EU does is important and vital, but I shall be asking the Chairman of the Select Committee to invite the relevant Commissioner from Brussels to come before our Committee to explain to us how the EU budget is spent. We also need an independent aid watchdog, as my hon. Friends have said, to provide impartial and objective analysis—a watchdog that will report to the Select Committee, on which I sit, and to Parliament, rather than, as at present, organisations reporting directly to the Minister.
	What tangible progress has the governance and transparency fund made to allow citizens to make their voices heard? Conservatives are committed to publishing full details of all British aid spending on the DFID website. Why will not the Government follow suit?
	Many articles have appeared in our national newspapers about corruption, which has been referred to. One which took me aback was that the President of Congo-Brazzaville has many luxury apartments in Paris and Monte Carlo. Why do  The Daily Telegraph and other media cover this? It is simply because it sells newspapers. Why does it sell newspapers? Because it is a travesty; it is strange for the President of Congo-Brazzaville to have yachts in Monte Carlo and luxury flats in some of the best residential parts of Paris while aid is going to that country. Is the Secretary of State raising the issues directly with the President of Congo-Brazzaville?
	The King of Swaziland has bought a huge luxury jet. What amazed me is that he spent more on his birthday party celebrations than the entire amount of UK aid to that country. He spent the equivalent of all our aid that we gave to Swaziland on his 36th birthday party. I find that simply unacceptable when I am fighting tooth and nail for life-saving drugs for my constituents. That is why it is so important to hold the Government to account on these matters.
	I have been extremely upset—I have never been so emotional—by the Government's arrogance in dismissing our genuine concerns. The conduct of the Under-Secretary towards my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) was breathtaking to say the least. We need to challenge corrupt leaders and make them realise that we will continue to give aid only if they clean up their act and are not prepared to be corrupt any more.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in a debate that takes place in a climate of world economic turmoil and that is therefore even more important. My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) was exactly right and said probably the most true thing in the entire debate: our constituents, faced with difficult economic circumstances, will be looking at how our Government spend our money including our international development budget, and saying "Yes, but we want to make sure the Government spend it properly."
	That is why I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), whom I have known for a long time. He makes a valuable contribution to this House on international development matters and has done so for a long time and from a genuine perspective. However, I have to say to him that he was joining the Secretary of State in a little bit of political banter in trying to cast doubt on our very strong commitment—repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) on many occasions—to the international target of 0.7 per cent. of GNI by 2013. I want to make that absolutely clear.

Tom Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I tried to intervene on the right hon. Gentleman earlier but he quite reasonably said that he was reaching his peroration. Perhaps he will answer the following point when I give way to him in a moment. I was interested in his motive for promoting his Bill. What did he think DFID was not doing that it should do? Was it just merely presentation or were there things in the Department that he thought it could do better?

Tom Clarke: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, as I wanted to do, for not giving way. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) made the point that a lot of people were making speeches and others wanted to get into the debate, and it was for that reason alone that I did not give way.
	I find it very flattering that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) puts that question to me. When a Back Bencher is given the opportunity to introduce a Bill, he does so hoping that he will get the support of this House and the other place. So the hon. Gentleman's question is really to Parliament: why did it feel the need, as it did unanimously and rightly, to pass that Act? I hope that the legislation is helping us to make the progress that Members on both sides of the House have identified is needed.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reasonable explanation, as always, and for his apology.
	There was a certain amount of scoffing during the debate that the Opposition international development team were not robust or inquiring. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) cited a blog that said that the policies of Her Majesty's Opposition were merely a "derivative" of the Government's policies, but she failed to read out the entire quotation. During the course of the debate, our excellent research team have been able to find the full quote, which goes on to state that the Opposition's policies contain
	"a number of sensible proposals"
	and that there are
	"plenty of good things to be said about them".
	If we are to get the quotes right in this debate, we must cite them in their entirety and not just partially.
	The international transparency commitment largely stemmed from what happened in Accra, as the Secretary of State made clear. We wholly concur with the view that there should be better aid co-ordination, publication and effectiveness, and he cited the example of Mozambique in support of that. It must be right that both donors and recipients have their performances well and truly scrutinised, but I make no apology for any criticism that I make in summing up in this debate, because any Department can always do a little better.
	A number of good speeches have been made this afternoon, but the one by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield was important in one respect: he has had a long-standing commitment to ensuring that our aid is properly scrutinised and audited, and that there should be a proper, independent audit watchdog. That is paramount to Conservative party policy.
	A number of things have been said about how and where our aid is spent, and which countries receive it. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mentioned Russia and the fact that it has built up a sovereign wealth fund of $500 billion. I think that the British Government have now stopped all aid to Russia, but I ask the Minister to confirm that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome it, if it is true. Of course, the Conservatives also wish to curtail UK aid to China. In no way do we wish to resile from our 0.7 per cent. target, but we simply feel that a country such as China, which has a GNI that works out at more than $2,500 a head, should be coping with its own problems from its own huge surplus. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire that the UK should continue to give aid to India, because it has the greatest concentration of poor people on earth; it will shortly have more poor people than the whole of sub-Saharan Africa put together. It must be right that we continue to give aid to that country.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield also mentioned the responsibility to protect. In the short time available to me, I wish to raise a few issues with the Minister. If we cannot encourage the international community to come up with a solution to dreadful problems such as the vast suffering in the Congo, in Darfur, which was mentioned by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), in Zimbabwe, which has been mentioned by other speakers, and in Burma, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned, by intervening at an earlier stage on the basis of the doctrine of the responsibility to protect, which was introduced by the United Nations in 2005, that doctrine will shortly mean very little. All in the civilised world need to pay close attention to that.
	The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, was right to mention President-elect Obama. We were delighted by that outcome and, like the Secretary of State and the Government, we look forward to a positive agenda and relationship with the incoming Administration. In that connection, two important multilateral discussions are going on. The hon. Gentleman mentioned one—the trade round in Doha. The third world—the poorest people on earth—has more to gain from a successful Doha round than do richer nations. Therefore, it is important that we breathe new life into those negotiations. To all those countries and areas—India, the US, the EU and Argentina, for example—that have, at some point in the negotiations, put up blocks that have meant that the negotiations have not so far succeeded, we say that they need to be prepared to compromise so that we can have a successful round.
	The Government could give those talks much more impetus. The international trade round is so important because it means, among other things, that a small country can take one of the largest countries on earth to the world trade court and, through a relatively informal process, obtain a judgment against it.
	The second round of multilateral talks is on climate change, with the summit in Potsdam next month, culminating in the summit in Copenhagen neat year. It is important to try to reach agreement on those, because if we do not manage to agree on carbon emissions—and limit the increase in external world temperature to just 2 per cent. in the next 50 years—world temperatures may spiral much higher. To put that threat in context, I would point out that the last ice age was only 5° below the present temperature. Again, it will be some of the poorest countries on earth that will suffer, and we have begun to see that in famine, flood, tsunamis and other events attached to climate change.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) raised the problem of DFID not being prepared to meet his delegation from the CPA. The Opposition's policies would prevent that situation from happening, because officials in DFID would have to be fully immersed in the communities to which aid was being given, instead of sitting in the capitals.
	The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the Chairman of the Select Committee, made several important points. I cannot go over them all, but one of his themes, which has been echoed throughout the debate, was about direct budgetary support. As the Secretary of State said, aid funding is up to 75 per cent. of the national budget in some countries. Indeed, in Rwanda, which several of us visited in the summer, total development aid is about 50 per cent. That is undesirable. We should give these countries a hand-up so that they can start to wean themselves off international help.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Afghanistan, a country that needs more of a hand-up than most. This morning, he and I attended a round-table conference at the Foreign Office on Afghanistan, and one theme that emerged was that the international effort there is not being disseminated to the public very well. If our constituents only see the worst coming out of Afghanistan, they will be very sceptical about our efforts. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that what the public do see is very Helmand-centric. However, there are many things happening, not least of which is the number of girls going back to school, which is wholly to be welcomed. Other positives include the number of roads and hospitals being built, which are very welcome indeed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire made some important points, not least about the world economic situation. At a time when we are all running into deeper and deeper economic problems, even recession, it is regrettable that several countries are thinking about reducing their international aid efforts. The Chairman of the Select Committee mentioned the possibility that Italy will do so. That is highly regrettable. If we are to make proper progress with some of the world's worst problems, we have to bear that in mind. We all want to meet the millennium development goals that were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, but we are a long way off meeting some of them—most notably the goals on universal education and climate change. That is highly regrettable. We should breathe more life into that.
	As I said at the beginning of my speech, if the doctrine of responsibility to protect is to be worth anything, we have to find solutions to the dreadful problems in such places as the DRC, Zimbabwe and Darfur. It should not be beyond the wit of the civilised western world in the 21st century to find solutions to those problems and to intervene at an earlier stage, so that hundreds of thousands of people are not displaced from their homes and killed needlessly. There is a lot to be done, and I look forward with interest to hearing what the Minister has to say about what he is doing.

Ivan Lewis: On the whole, this has been a high-quality debate. I want to reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the importance of maintaining global support for development despite the economic downturn. Now is not the time for either the United Kingdom or our international partners to turn our backs on the world's poorest people. As developing countries are hit by the global economic downturn, they need our support more than ever, and we need theirs. If we are to tackle global challenges such as climate change, resource shortages and growing demands for energy, we will not be able to do it alone.
	Now is not the time to undermine confidence and support among the British people in investment in development, either in pursuit of a cheap headline or as a manifestation of a future hidden agenda. It is essential that we work together with developing countries and that we keep our promises to deliver more and better aid and to meet the millennium development goals by 2015. In order to do that, donors need to make sure that every penny we spend is put to the best possible use. As my right hon. Friend said when he opened the debate, DFID is playing a key role in improving the effectiveness of our aid and ensuring that other donors provide aid as effectively as we do.
	Our leadership at Accra meant that developing countries can now expect to receive longer-term support from donors that is better co-ordinated and makes better use of their budget systems. We secured agreements that donors and developing countries would hold each other more accountable for the use of aid and we pushed hard to improve the global transparency of aid through the international aid transparency initiative.
	We are leading by example. We have already met seven of the 10 Paris declaration targets on aid effectiveness and are on track to meet the remaining three. We have developed an independent advisory committee on development impact to provide a serious challenge function to DFID's work, with independent membership and National Audit Office observation. We have strong systems in place to control and monitor the expenditure of UK aid and are supporting developing countries in their efforts to fight corruption. By putting such measures in place, we can be confident that UK aid is having the greatest possible impact. Later this month, we will once again be at the forefront of the fight against poverty at the financing for development conference in Doha.
	Let me turn to the contributions that have been made in the debate. First, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) took the opportunity, once again, to describe DFID as a world leader in the field of development. I thank him for recognising that on behalf of all those who work incredibly hard on the front line in some of the poorest countries in the world. His comments were in stark contrast to some of the contributions made by Back-Bench Members of his party. He said that we should remove this subject from the realm of party politics. As a new member of this team, I am delighted to see that we appear to have political consensus on the importance of this country's leadership in international development.
	Equally, I would say that the Conservative party has a record and form from the time it was in government. It is also true—let us make it clear—that this Government and, more specifically, this Prime Minister have led the world in demanding that the richest countries fulfil their responsibility to the poor. That is not party politics, but a statement of fact in a world where people ask every day, "Does politics make a difference? Are politicians all the same?" Well, this is one area where we have not been all the same: we would not be leading the world in international development if we had not had a Labour Government in power for 11 years and a Labour Prime Minister who has this matter at the heart of his moral compass.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I gently say to the Minister that people watching him make these remarks will regard them as disgraceful? We are talking about some of the poorest people and most difficult issues on the planet and he is playing party politics. I have made very clear the Conservative party's stance on the matter, as well as our commitment to the aid budget.

Ivan Lewis: I very much welcomed the contribution made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, who speaks on these matters for the Opposition, and the fair way that he paid tribute to DFID's work. That was my starting point, but I am proud of the fact that international development demonstrates most clearly the virtues of having a Government who have at heart a commitment to social justice, both in this country and around the world. I do not apologise for that.
	The term "no strings attached" was used in the debate, but the string between the Opposition Front and Back Benches is so thin that it causes me serious concern. I shall say for one last time that the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) has every right to raise concerns about getting access to DFID staff in a particular country. If he felt slighted that a member of staff was not available at the time, I apologise—although I do not know the details, and there may well have been good reasons for that. However, I have to say from this Dispatch Box that I will not tolerate his using that incident to cast aspersions on the commitment of our staff, who are often working in the most difficult circumstances in the world.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) talked about DFID staff sitting in offices in capital cities, but what impression is that designed to give of the contribution that our staff make? I have worked in a number of Departments, and I have never seen a group of people so mission-driven. I am proud to work with them, but that does not mean that we cannot do better. Although we are the world leaders in this area, we can still ensure that every day we improve what we do. That is the basis for any organisation that seeks to do its best—a recognition of the need to improve continually. However, I will not have the organisation that is DFID, or its staff who work so hard, demeaned and undermined in the way that has happened in this debate.
	May I also say to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield that I welcome his support for the overhaul of the DFID website? He asked some valid questions about how it should operate in future, and I hope that he will give us full support in that respect.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about independent scrutiny, but I refer him to the work of the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the International Development Committee. Also, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, he is required to make an annual report to Parliament—in terms of independent scrutiny, that is a pretty high level of transparency in how we account for the resources that we spend in the name of the UK taxpayer.
	I remind the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield that his party is on the record as saying that it supports budget support, and that we should go even further in future. However, he cannot give the impression that sustaining budget support will not mean that tough judgments will always have to be made, on a country-by-country basis, in very difficult circumstances and about very difficult political and security matters.

Andrew Mitchell: I am most grateful to the junior Minister for giving way. I have set out very clearly my party's attitude to budget support, and explained that, in principle, it is the best form of aid. However, I made it very clear why it has to be made more accountable— [ Interruption .] For the second time, the Secretary of State has muttered from a sedentary position "Daily Telegraph"—referring, I think, to an article written by the Whitehall editor in today's edition of that newspaper. Although we support the thrust of what DFID is doing, the Under-Secretary must not expect us not to investigate, debate and discuss these issues. In the context of supporting the general thrust of British development policy, it is possible to argue across the House about how best to deliver it.

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that there are no circumstances in which we give aid with no strings attached; there are minimum standards that every Member of this House is fully aware of and signs up to, so he should not have used the term "no strings attached". Even a junior Opposition Member would never have used such a misleading term in an interview with a national newspaper.
	I now turn to the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke). I pay tribute to him for the leadership he displayed on the issue long before the mainstream majority believed that it should be a priority for the Government. I echo his point that we must maintain our commitment despite the global economic turmoil, as our Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made clear.
	My right hon. Friend mentioned the DRC. Of course it is right that every Government in that situation uses their power and influence to do the right thing and to try to get an immediate cessation of the violence. I must correct some of the misleading impressions given in the House today. The UN Security Council has not yet agreed to the deployment of an additional 3,000 troops. It is still actively considering the offer. We believe that the priority is redeploying the 17,000 troops. We are very sympathetic to making more financial assistance available, if that is required to enable more troops to be deployed, but my information is that the UN Security Council, having met on Tuesday, has not made a final decision. I also point out that this country has not expressed a view as regards the European Union. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield referred to the issue, but there has been no request for additional troops from a European Union member state.
	The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) talked about humanitarian aid. I assure him that progress is being made on that. Food deliveries continue to arrive in Goma daily. There are 20 trucks a day from Uganda, Tanzania or Rwanda. Aid agencies continue to contain cholera outbreaks across a number of towns. Emergency non-food items supplied by DFID to UNICEF will be packaged to get to those with the greatest need, and two of our humanitarian advisers have now arrived on the ground to enhance the humanitarian support available. On a daily basis, we are getting the necessary humanitarian aid to those countries.
	We have closely considered the issues to do with CDC, and we believe that it is abiding by the highest possible standards, as is expected, in its approach to taxation. I also say to the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk that the recent report in  The Observer on our position on international agreements was inaccurate. It is our policy to strengthen the Committee of Experts on International Co-operation in Tax Matters, although we are not convinced that it should become an intergovernmental body. We want to strengthen it, but we are not convinced about its future status.
	The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the Chairman of the International Development Committee, made a measured contribution. He said it was very important that we did not give a false impression that budget support was not the right direction to take, particularly as we want the United States to support that direction of travel. He was right to say that it is vital that we improve co-ordination for donors. He was also right to say that the issue is not just accountability to donor countries; we have a responsibility to make sure that Governments in the countries that receive our aid are far more accountable to their local population. Better information is an important part of that.
	The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) said that we needed to remake the case to our constituents for the importance of aid, both because it is the right thing to do, from a social justice point of view, and because it is in our national interest. I agree entirely with that.
	The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) felt that I was laughing at his contribution; the only point in it when I laughed was when he said that socialists were responsible for the current global economic turmoil. It is socialists, apparently, who controlled Barings bank and other financial institutions around the world, and who occupy the White House. I note that he opposed supporting a DFID aid programme to India, whereas the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, who spoke before him, said that he fully supported the need to continue aid to India—a case of Back Benchers in slight disarray.
	May I assure the hon. Member for Cotswold—
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion lapsed without Question put.

PETITION

Planning and Development (Cheshire)

Stephen O'Brien: On behalf of the best part of 1,400 local residents in my Eddisbury constituency, may I present a petition on behalf of the residents of Cuddington, Sandiway and nearby areas?
	The petition declares:
	The Petition of residents of Cuddington and Sandiway, and others,
	Declares that Vale Royal Borough Council is failing to listen and take action on the concerns of local residents regarding the flawed site selection process and public consultation for proposed gypsy and travellers sites in Vale Royal.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to put pressure on Vale Royal Borough Council firstly to place on public record that the proposed site at Chester Road, Sandiway is confirmed as unsuitable for a proposed gypsy and traveller site; secondly to halt its public consultation on proposed gypsy and traveller sites until such time as the site selection criteria can be reviewed and amended to ensure that they comply with government guidance and planning policies; and thirdly, to defer this issue until after the completion of the Regional Spatial Strategy and therefore, by definition of the timescales for the Strategy, to pass this issue to the new unitary authority of Cheshire West and Chester.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000287]

THAMES WATER (OXFORDSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Ms Butler.]

Edward Vaizey: For almost 20 years, my constituents have been living with the possibility of a large reservoir being built on open land near their homes. This is not just any reservoir. Thames Water's proposals are for a reservoir of some 8 square miles, taking 10 years to build and filled with 150,000 million litres of water. It would cost some £1 billion. It would be situated just south of Abingdon, between the villages of East Hanney and Steventon, but it would affect many more communities in my constituency.
	The reservoir is proposed on the basis that it will provide additional water for London, Swindon and Oxfordshire to cope both with London's increasing population and with the potential effects of climate change. It is an astonishing fact, especially in the light of the soaking we have received in the last few days, and the flooding that hit my constituency in July 2007, that the south-east is one of the most water-stressed areas not just in this country but in the world. As a constituency MP, I am mindful of my responsibility to represent my constituents' views and concerns as forcefully as possible, but I am mindful, too, of the national interest. Indeed, I suspect that my view on the reservoir represents that of the majority of my constituents. A few of them are opposed to a reservoir come what may, quite understandably. Some of them would welcome a reservoir as a leisure resource and a nature reserve, but the vast majority say to me, "If Thames Water can convince me that it is essential, I will reluctantly accept it."
	The point that I want to make is that Thames Water has not convinced local people. I wish to praise the efforts of the local community in holding Thames Water to account, particularly the tireless efforts of the local county councillor, Iain Brown, and the Group Against Reservoir Development—GARD—which has raised a lot of money to pay for expert opinion. I know that the Minister cannot, here and now, give me a considered view of the merits or otherwise of a reservoir, but if my points are to have force, it is necessary briefly to set out the parameters of the debate.
	A few years ago, reservoir-sceptics like me could oppose the reservoir on the ground that Thames Water was not doing enough to use efficiently the water to which it already had access. That primarily centred on the need to fix leakages and to increase water metering. As anyone who has looked around London recently will have seen, Thames Water has at last undertaken a massive programme of repair. Given the financial and logistical restraints under which it operates, it would be hard, I concede, to ask it to do much more other than continue its work programme on leakage reduction. In 2006-07, leakage accounted for some 672 million litres a day being lost—roughly equivalent to twice the amount of water that one would get from a reservoir. After work to some 6,500 km of water mains, Thames Water will reduce that figure to just over 400 million litres a day—an enormous figure, but one which is deemed justifiable in economic terms.
	In addition, I welcome moves by both Thames Water and the Government to introduce compulsory metering. We pay for all other utilities in that way, so it seems absurd that water is not metered as a matter of course. Metering will ensure that we use this precious resource more carefully, and I am pleased to learn that compulsory metering will start in 2010 and eventually cover more than three quarters of London households and almost 90 per cent. of Thames Valley households, although I should point out that the Environment Agency still feels that Thames Water could still do more on that matter.
	If water leakage and water metering have been, as it were, taken care of, is the case for the reservoir therefore proved? Not yet. There are still a number of outstanding issues. The first is a disagreement about the expected level of demand for water use. In the Government's water strategy for England, published in February 2008, they suggested that household per capita consumption could be reduced to 130 litres per person per day by 2030. By contrast, Thames Water forecasts a significant increase in per capita consumption, up to 165 litres per person per day by 2030. The difference in the Government's estimates, and those of Thames Water, based on a population forecast of about 9.25 million people, is 340 million litres per day—surprisingly, almost the same amount of water that a reservoir would provide.
	So my first question to the Minister is: who is right? Is the Government's prediction right or is Thames Water's prediction right, because quite a lot hangs on those figures? Even if one were to accept Thames Water's predictions and say that, therefore, we needed to access more water, one would still have to ask whether a reservoir was the right way to go about it. Is there an alternative to a reservoir scheme? Many other schemes have been suggested, some fanciful, some less so. A detailed breakdown of some of the other schemes is contained in the report that GARD commissioned from a water expert, Chris Binnie, who cites a number of other, different sources of water. For example, both GARD and the local district council have suggested the possibility of a reservoir at Longdon Marsh to assist transfer from the River Severn, aquifer storage and recovery and the revision of the lower Thames operating agreement.
	However, there is one option to which I am particularly attracted: the rather euphemistically titled, effluent reuse. Some 2 billion litres of treated waste water are discharged into the sea every day, and some of it could be treated to a standard whereby it was perfectly acceptable for drinking. In a submission to the draft water resources management plan, the Environment Agency, which also takes Thames Water to task on the issue of water use forecasts, states clearly that Thames Water
	"has not fully explored the role of demand management and alternative supply options, such as effluent reuse."
	The agency continues:
	"We are disappointed the company continues to discount effluent reuse options and believe there may be opportunities for using effluent reuse to contribute a significant amount of water."
	I should be interested in the Minister's—indeed, the Government's—views on effluent reuse generally, if not specifically as an alternative to the reservoir. I am particularly interested in the light of the new technology that is available, and the kind of technology that, I understand, is operated in Essex at Langford. By using the Langford process in London, Thames Water could, I am told, potentially supply six times as much water from effluent reuse as from a reservoir.
	These are important issues, and, as a Member of this House, I am lucky enough to be able to debate them here. That brings me to the fundamental reason why I asked for tonight's Adjournment debate. My constituents do not share my luck. The combination of the draft water resources management plan and the new infrastructure planning commission means that it is highly likely that there will be no public inquiry into whether the reservoir should be built. The draft water resources management plan and the three-month extension of the deadline for presenting all WRMPs to DEFRA will, by sleight of hand, allow the case for the reservoir to be accepted through the back door. The newly created planning commission is likely to nod through the proposed site. I therefore ask the Minister seriously to consider the need for a proper public inquiry, not just into the possible site of a reservoir, but into whether it is necessary at all. From my correspondence with the Minister's predecessor, it seems clear that the Government intend to railroad the proposal through via the WRMP and then the national policy statement. My constituents' voices will not be heard. Equally, the arguments will not be properly tested and cross-examined, a process that could benefit all parties involved.
	While I am here and on my feet, I should like to raise two ancillary matters—general points that the Minister might like to consider. First, the only organisation apart from Thames Water directly involved in this debate on the reservoir is the Vale of White Horse district council, which is a statutory consultee on the ground of being the local planning authority. I congratulate its officers, and in particular its recently departed chief executive Terry Stock, on an excellent response to the draft WRMP. Its officers have asked me, however, how such a small district council could gather the resources necessary to make a proper case on behalf of the local population. Surely in these circumstances, local councils should be able to apply for specific funds to enable them to put their cases properly. I am not talking about a large amount—perhaps £100,000 or £200,000, so that it could have a dedicated team and access expert advice. Such a sum is small, but it would be very significant for that small district council charged, in effect, with being the planning authority.
	I also seek assurances from the Minister that, should the reservoir go ahead, local residents and businesses will be properly compensated. A number of homes will have to be demolished, as will the site of the largest milking-goat herd in the United Kingdom. I seek assurances that people will be compensated at proper, negotiated, commercial and market rates that will enable the businesses to be re-established locally and the livelihoods of those displaced by any reservoir to be protected. If the reservoir goes ahead, I also hope that the Government and Thames Water will give adequate compensation to those whose lives will be seriously inconvenienced for up to 10 years.

Jane Kennedy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) on securing a debate about this important issue. Despite the rain that we experienced in the summer, the drought that lasted from 2004 to 2006 is still fresh in our memories, as is the knowledge that a third dry winter after 2006 could have caused serious problems in some areas of the south-east. How we manage this precious resource to ensure a sustainable supply is important, and I am grateful for the opportunity to show what the Government are doing about the matter.
	The hon. Gentleman has spoken passionately and made his case robustly. He questioned the rigour of the appraisal process. I am somewhat more constrained than I like to be in Adjournment debates because of the process that will be carried forward. I should take a moment to explain what that will be. It is for each water company to justify any proposals for reservoirs or other new water supply resources. That must be on grounds of need, taking account of economic and environmental considerations.
	A fundamental element of that process is that the plans are subject to public consultation, and that was at the heart of the case for making the plans statutory. The water companies produced their draft plans earlier this year and consulted on them over the summer. That consultation period is now closed, and the companies are preparing their responses to the comments that they received about their plans. Those responses will then be published; they will show the consideration given to the comments received and whether any changes have been made to the plans.
	In the case of Thames Water, more than 300 stakeholders and other interested parties responded to the public consultation with views on the draft plan. Thames Water is now preparing its statement of response to the representations that it received and has until next February in which to publish its response. At that point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will determine whether to call for an inquiry or a hearing on the plans or to issue directions on changes to be made to the draft plans before publication. In deciding whether to hold a hearing or an inquiry on a water company's plan, he will consider whether they have complied with the legislation on process and content, including robust appraisal of the options to determine the proposed way forward.
	I will therefore speak in general terms and will be unable to deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's specific questions, although in other circumstances I prefer in debates of this nature to respond as closely as I can. I hope that he will understand the constraints under which I am working.
	We face a serious challenge when it comes to water management. Our population is growing and using more water as a result of our changing lifestyles, and we have a changing pattern of land use. That is putting more demand pressure on the water available, especially in areas where the supply of water is under stress; the hon. Gentleman says that his constituency is located in precisely such an area. Climate change, which will lead to hotter, drier summers—although I cannot remember many of those recently—and milder winters with more intense and sporadic rain will worsen the situation.
	Protecting our water resources is therefore essential. In 1997, the Government set up the UK climate impacts programme to encourage private and public sector organisations to assess their vulnerability to climate change so that they can plan their own adaptation strategies. Their research is invaluable in helping us to understand and adapt to these pressures. New forecasts on the impacts of climate change are expected next year. Our new water strategy, "Future Water", sets out the Government's plans for water in the future and the practical steps that will be taken to ensure a sustainable supply of water for people and businesses. I will return to "Future Water" in a moment when I deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about consumption at 130 litres per person. The steps include measures to reduce the demand for water, as well as to improve the supply—for example, through the abstraction licensing regime or, where the case is well made, by agreeing the need for new infrastructure. The overarching message of the new strategy is the need for everyone to value water and to take responsibility for protecting this unique resource.
	The Environment Agency plays a vital role in that protection. It is the statutory body with a duty to manage water resources in England and Wales, and its aim is to ensure that the management and future development of our water resources is carried out in a sustainable manner. It achieves that by regulating such activities as the abstraction of water through a licensing system, and it has also provided guidance to the water companies on drafting their water resources management plans.
	Ofwat is the independent economic regulator for the water industry, and it sets water price limits. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in August, as part of the 2009 review of water prices, water companies submitted to Ofwat their draft business plans for the period 2010-2015. Those plans set out each company's initial view of what it needs to do to maintain its assets, improve services to customers and deal with its impact on the environment. As part of this review process, DEFRA has submitted to Ofwat key documents that cover how it might contribute to wider social and environmental matters. Additionally, we will look to the Environment Agency to ensure that important environmental objectives can be achieved through the plans.
	Water companies themselves have statutory duties to maintain adequate supplies of wholesome water. Central to the long-term planning for water supply are the water companies' 25-year resource management plans. Those became a statutory requirement for the first time in 2007 and describe how each company aims to secure a sustainable demand-supply balance over the next 25 years. In their plans, water companies should look at the full range of options for reducing water demand, and where those are insufficient or unjustified in cost terms, they should proceed with developing sustainable new supply-side measures, which is why we are debating such proposals this afternoon.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the option of effluent reuse and asked what the Government's view was on such technology. We accept that it is one of many options that water companies may consider to achieve a demand-supply balance as part of their water resources management plans. It is for Thames Water to consider the options, and to undertake a robust options appraisal. It must justify its preferred options as the most cost-effective way forward. I understand that Thames Water has received representations on how that is addressed in its draft plan, but it is for the company to respond to those representations.
	The demand-side management options that water companies have to consider include leakage management—the hon. Gentleman raised that point. Controlling leakage is a vital component in the management of supply and demand for water. Since 1994, Thames Water has reduced leakage by a third, and I am grateful to him for acknowledging that. It has achieved that progress in part through its commitment to replace more than 1,500 km of mains by 2010, and the programme will continue with increased mains replacement up to 2020. It has also achieved the leakage targets set by Ofwat in each of the past two years. Those targets are set to reduce the leakage of each water company to the economic level of leakage below which it would cost more to address the leak than to produce water from an alternative source. Thames Water is on track to reduce leakage to that economic level by 2009-10.
	The water saving group, of which I will be the chair, has made significant progress in the development of a programme of measures to promote water efficiency in households. That includes a project led by Waterwise, working with water companies, to update the evidence base of the cost-effectiveness of water efficiency measures. We have amended regulations to allow water companies in areas of serious water stress, including Thames Water, to consider compulsory metering as part of their water resources management plans. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on that. Ofwat has also consulted on proposals for water efficiency targets for water companies and an independent review of charging will look at options for metering water supplies.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the figure of 130 litres per person per day. That is an aspiration within "Future Water", not a target that must be met. It represents our view of what could be achievable by 2030, through cost-effective measures, if all stakeholders—water companies, manufacturers, retailers, plumbers, consumers and others—acted together in a concerted way to manage demand. Water resources management plans contain a water company's view of future per capita demand based on its own assumptions and modelling.
	I am unable to comment, while the statutory process is ongoing, on the contents or merits of Thames Water's plans, although the hon. Gentleman is obviously free to do so, as he has done. Water companies need to consider all these options to ensure that the most cost-effective option is chosen, so that customers' bills are not higher than they need to be. In the cases where demand management by itself does not achieve a sustainable supply-demand balance, or is not cost-effective, new or enhanced supply needs to be considered.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that while those plans are following the statutory process, it would be inappropriate for me to prejudge any decisions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might make on the evidence presented. Should Thames Water's final water resources management plan include a proposal for a reservoir near Abingdon, the water company would nevertheless still need to obtain development consent. Under the terms of the Planning Bill that is making progress through Parliament, that scheme would be a nationally significant water infrastructure project, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, and as such, Thames Water would need to apply to the infrastructure planning commission for development consent. However, if Thames Water sought development approval before the Planning Bill proposals reached the statute book, it could apply to the Secretary of State for a compulsory works order under section 167 of the Water Industry Act 1991 or to the local planning authority for planning permission. Again, I will not comment on the merits of any application or prejudge the outcome, because that might fetter the Secretary of State's discretion in making decisions about any proposals that come before him.
	As I said to the hon. Gentleman, I would normally like to respond in greater detail to some of the questions that he rightly asked on behalf of his constituents. I know that he will continue to raise their concerns as the process develops. I undertake to draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty- five minutes past Six o'clock.